Sign up Sign in Samples Blog contact support
Easy Way to Override Rules

Support Ticket

acknowledged
 
+issue

While overall, I get the purpose of the new design, there seem to be some things that were easier.  Whether by design or otherwise, with the old way of editing rule cards, when you saved (submit) the rule, you could save it to a different set.  I don't think you can do that now.

In short, I want to view the current matching rule, possibly modify it, and create an overriding rule on submit.

+example

I have a Cardtype, http://gerry.wagn.org/chapters, and I want to override the Cardtype+*type+*structure rule (which is pretty much out of the box wagn configuration) for this type to sort the Chapter list by last create, but leave it by name for other types.  I want to save a modified copy of Cardtype+*type+*structure to Chapters+*self+*structure (any more narrow set that matches the main card, Chapters for this example).

The old interface would let you save as any matching set, but I'm not sure that is best either.  If there are other existing rules for a setting matching the card, the cardiac might want to know that and even visit the next in line rule that would be exposed if the matching rule is deleted.  It would be confusing to save to an overriden rule, at most they would want to visit it.

 
+discussion

Looks like there's a bug there. There are quite a few with the new menu that need to get ironed out very soon.

 

We did make a conceptual shift. Instead of starting by choosing your set (which only made sense to expert wagneers, and even we tended to screw it up), you start by editing the settings but then have access to switch the set when you get down to the bottom level.

 

So in this case you're supposed to see the related sets as an option when you get down to choosing a set.

 

I think we probably will ultimately want both. If you can't change the set on a high level, the rule interface ceases to work as a listing. It would be nice to retain the capacity to switch that. But the common ux pattern that we really want to solve is forcing people to choose the correct set before getting down to work. This is a confusing and discouraging experience.

--Ethan McCutchen.....2015-05-18 02:07:51 +0000

Probably obvious, but just to be clear (to you and anyone else) -- the functionality is still there; it's just an interface-level need.

--Ethan McCutchen.....2015-05-18 02:08:35 +0000

No problem. Like I said, in general, I see the importance of simplifying for non-wagneers. Some things, though, need to have easier access because we need to use them so much. Or maybe we could eventually have some individualization of the UX. Like a global mode you could set per-user based on your use patterns.

--Gerry Gleason.....2015-05-23 15:42:08 +0000

This is at least partly fixed now, no?

I think what I find missing is that it should fill in the radio button for the set that it is showing. Allowing you to change it, but making the default updating the current rule. Also, would be good for the sets that are hidden by the current one should be highlighted somehow. Could even show an indication of presence so you'd know which one is exposed on delete of the rule.

I guess there could be alternatives for handling selecting a less specific set, you could offer to move it (i.e. delete current rule, and save on the selected one).

--Gerry Gleason.....2015-05-31 12:08:55 +0000

D'oh, now I see the (current) indicator. The odd this is when you cancel (added a ticket for this), it leaves behind the more general sets (radio list) and doesn't close the form.

--Gerry Gleason.....2015-05-31 12:33:33 +0000

Yeah, that looks like a bug.

--Ethan McCutchen.....2015-06-09 19:34:23 +0000

Didn't I create a different ticket for that? I think the issue named here is fixed, maybe a rename is in order if there is no other ticket.

--Gerry Gleason.....2015-06-10 19:10:31 +0000

The named issue isn't fixed (access to self cards from type cards). The other should be a separate ticket; not sure if there is one.

--Ethan McCutchen.....2015-06-10 19:42:13 +0000

Hmm, maybe this should be renamed in that case. I don't think I understood the exact conditions that made it a bug, then maybe I've seen it working on other cases and thought it was fixed. Guess not.

--Gerry Gleason.....2015-06-13 15:12:18 +0000

The other one was the cancel problem, which I think is fixed (whether released or not) and their probably is a ticket too.

--Gerry Gleason.....2015-06-13 15:13:14 +0000