ECC Log format (warning: rant)

[Mike Gambier]

This could be a long-running thread ;)
 
To my mind the new technical log is both a step forward and a step back.
 
I'm not always a huge fan of tabbed screens and it's taking a while to relearn how to navigate around and dig out what I need, but bravo to SAP for trying at least.
 
Some of my pet hates so far about it: 

The 'Expand all' and 'Collapse all' buttons...I wish you could specify expand all as a personal setting. Also once you have expanded all you can't choose to return to the original high-level node setting which seems a bit daft.
The ALV Tree 'remembers' what node you have currently selected (the top one being the automatic default) and redraws itself after a refresh keeping that node at the top. Handy if you remember to select the bottom node, annoying if you don't select anything but have scrolled way on down to the bottom and then hit refresh...
Shame they didn't add left-click or right-click functions like 'Display Item' directly on the ALV Tree Items (or even *gasp* drag-and-drop functionality to focus on a specific node)...old-school hotspots never die do they?
On the plus side:

The step history tab saves a lot of that annying expand and collapse work you had to do on the 'old' log
The message tab is handy being available immediately
The representation of nested loops because second nature after a while and is easier to read than the 'old' log. Quite what would happen with 'loops within loops within loops though.'..wonder if the screen would run out of Tree node levels in the end??
Regards,
 
Mike GT> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:34:32 +0000> Subject: ECC Log format (warning: rant)> From: wug at workflowconnections.com> To: sap-wug at mit.edu> > Hello wuggers,> > Am I the only one who gets the same feeling from the new ECC workflow log> as sitting in a traffic jam?> > <rant>> I've tried to get used to it for over a year and I think at one point I> actually managed to discover a useful feature somewhere (though I've> forgotten what it was), but for most part it's just stupid. Yes, stupid.> I'm sorry if this upsets some people who have invested significant time> into this as it's a fairly complex tool and looks very pretty, but it just> doesn't cut it in the real world.> > Let's take looking at a container element for a step in the WF as an example:> > Old style:> 1. Click log icon to display workflow log.> 2. Click on container icon next to step in question.> 3. See container element of interest.> 4. Feel a sense of calm and wellbeing.> > > ECC log:> 1. Click log icon to display workflow log> > 2. Click to expand first fork.> > 3. See 'Branch 1' 'Branch 2', click on one at random.> > 4. Resist urge to use foul language in front of client because it's the> wrong one.> > 5. Click to expand other one, realize you need a SECOND click to expand> branch itself (what's the point of the 'Branch n' tree level?).> > 6. Click twice to switch to Chronological view when you realize there are> more forks further down.> > 7. Think how nice it would be to sit in a traffic jam on a Friday afternoon.> > 8. Click to select step of interest.> > 9. Click on Container tab.> > 10. Attempt to throw mouse out of window because scroll wheel doesn't work> in container tab sub-window, which is horizontal and and thus far too> small, and all the system elements are of course at the top, blocking out> the ones you're interested in. Luckily mouse is attached by a cable (at> least mine is) and can easily be retrieved.> > 11. Click several times to scroll down the container list to find the one> you want.> (If it's a mulitline element then clicking it causes it to expand and> cover the entire container in a way that is also really annoying, but> that's a whole different topic.)> > > Ummm... "New and improved"? Surely someone's been overdoing the happy> pills a little?> </rant>> > > So, back to my original question: what are our options of pressuring SAP> to re-design it or at least in the meantime give us our old log back as a> *default* option?> > I can't help thinking one or two development requests are not going to cut> it, and even if they respond via that route then the thought of waiting> two years to see the result in ECC7 is just a bit much.> > Any opinions?> Cheers,> Mike> > > > _______________________________________________> SAP-WUG mailing list> SAP-WUG at mit.edu> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20080307/dcf41692/attachment.htm