We are moving to Git Issues for bug tracking in future releases. During transition, content will be in both tools. If you'd like to file a new bug, please create an issue.

Bug 50 - About RST errors
About RST errors
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 221
Product: Research Support Tool
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Modules
To be determined
PC Windows 2000
: P2 normal
Assigned To: Eunice Yung
http://research2.csci.educ.ubc.ca/pkp...
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2002-04-20 10:34 PDT by Patrick
Modified: 2003-07-22 23:28 PDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Version Reported In:
Also Affects:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Patrick 2002-04-20 10:34:44 PDT
1. Related studies link does not work
2. Media reports kind of works...it takes us to the bottom of the page. 
However, Media reports is not the top most item, it's define terms. I would 
think that this is because the page is at the bottom and can't show anything 
else below. Right?
3. Google search doesn't go anywhere either. Maybe John and yourself don't see 
this as necessary. However, you may want to think about a line or two 
explaining why we chose Google over any other search engine. Some could see 
this as a sponsor relationship when really it's a matter of efficiency and that 
Google is one of the best search engines out there. 
4. I still think that we should have "email author," "add comment," "email 
others," and "add/portfolio" in blue and linked to a description. This could be 
a way to entice people to take action if they knew why we were wanting them to. 
It's a chance for us to explain the collaborative purpose of the project. For 
something like "add/portfolio," it definitely needs explanation. I still can't 
figure out what we're wanting from people in terms of creating a portfolio. 
While the other three items may not need explanation the add/portfolio one 
certainly does.
Comment 1 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-20 13:28:29 PDT
Please post all RST-related bugs with the RST selected as the product. I 
don't think I should be handling these bugs.
Comment 2 Patrick 2002-04-21 10:57:35 PDT
I agree, but who'll be taking care of these bugs?
Comment 3 Eunice Yung 2002-04-25 03:06:08 PDT
I will take care of those links and content of RST if they have problems, for 
the images changes, Henry will correct it.
Comment 4 Eunice Yung 2002-04-25 03:27:15 PDT
1. Related studies link does not work
>>do you mean Related Sites? it seems working for me?

2. Media reports kind of works...it takes us to the bottom of the page. 
However, Media reports is not the top most item, it's define terms. I would 
think that this is because the page is at the bottom and can't show anything 
else below. Right?
>> it didn't go to define terms, but going to 2. Canada Sites, yes, since it's 
the end of the page, the link can't go to the media reports and appear as 1st.

3. Google search doesn't go anywhere either. Maybe John and yourself don't see 
this as necessary. However, you may want to think about a line or two 
explaining why we chose Google over any other search engine. Some could see 
this as a sponsor relationship when really it's a matter of efficiency and that 
Google is one of the best search engines out there. 
>> there is no Google Search in this RST, may be some other RST has that?


4. I still think that we should have "email author," "add comment," "email 
others," and "add/portfolio" in blue and linked to a description. This could be 
a way to entice people to take action if they knew why we were wanting them to. 
It's a chance for us to explain the collaborative purpose of the project. For 
something like "add/portfolio," it definitely needs explanation. I still can't 
figure out what we're wanting from people in terms of creating a portfolio. 
While the other three items may not need explanation the add/portfolio one 
certainly does.

>>yes, you are right.
how about this

Email Author - use your default email client to send email directly to paper's 
author

Add Comment - put your comments on this paper

Email Others - use our email form to email your friends

Add portfolio - Save this paper into your created portfolio, you can organize 
papers and folder to fulfill your needs.

Comment 5 Patrick 2002-04-25 09:58:23 PDT
Here are my comments, for what it's worth: 

1. About the Tool: The "about the tool" comes too late in the table. The 
problem is that by the time you get to the "about the tool" link you don't even 
know it is a tool. So, reference to "tool" needs to come sooner. I suggest 
putting "Research Support Tool" above "for this invited conference paper" at 
the top of the table. Now, if/when this is done I see two options. One, 
hyperlink the title, "Research Support Tool," and when people click on it they 
go to all the information that is currently given under the link "about the 
tool." If you chose to do this you'd get rid of "about the tool" at the bottom 
of the table, just to make things simpler. The other thing you could do is just 
have "research support tool" at the top of the table but don't have it linked 
to anything. If you were to go with this option you'd keep the "about the tool" 
at the bottom of the table and have it linked to where it currently goes. My 
third suggestion/option is that we don't have any reference to "about the tool" 
on this table and that any information used to describe each feature be pasted 
at the top of each page of the feature selected OR a link be made in the 
feature for people to click on if they want to learn more about the feature. 
For example, if a user clicks on Capture Cite they're taken to the page that is 
currently available for this feature. At teh top of the page may be a link to 
find out more about this capture cite feature. This is where I think the 
information that we currently have in the About the Tool should go. I'm usually 
good for one breakthrough a day, so this is my breakthrough so far. There might 
be more, so hold onto your seat... 

2. Define Terms: It's too bad the x-refer system isn't up. Define terms still 
okay, though. 

3. E-Journals: Wow, too much information! First of all, how/why was the 
education RST chosen for my conference. I think that somewhere in the admin 
setup should be an option as to which RST they want to use. This way, directors 
can browse through each of the 12 or so RST's we have and choose the one that 
they think will work best for our purposes. I say this because I'm not sure how 
my conference got tagged with the education RST. Next, instead of having to 
search each e-journal individuall for each term what I suggest is that a box be 
placed beside each search button. If users wanted to search e-journals 2, 8, 
25, and 23 they would select the boxes next to these e-journals. If they wanted 
to search all of them there should be a box that says "select all." This is far 
more efficient and useful than having to go through each one.  

4. Related theory: As with my previous point, how the heck did "Education 
Theory" get selected as the site that would be searched. Click on teh link to 
know what I mean. I'm not sure how "education theory" was selected, either by 
me or the person who submitted this paper. Please clarify. 

5. Related sites: How did these get selected. Obviously this is the Education 
RST, but how/when was it selected. Why wasn't the Science RST used or the 
Astrophysics, etc.? 

6. General comment: You should know that for each of these search features 
(e.g. related sites, e-journals, etc.) the item that is searched is the word in 
the search box PLUS the word "and" which comes after the search box. This is a 
bug, I think. Try it out: Click on Search for any of the features and the 
selected search engine or journal will search for the word in teh search box 
plus "and." For me, it's search "larry bird and" as one thing instead of "larry 
bird." This is quite frustrating because the RST is including the word "and" 
and making the search impossible. Make sense? 

7. Online Forums: Huh? I click on this feature and I'm taken to a page that has 
aera, diva, divb, divc... What are these? Is this just a test? I don't think we 
should be using acronyms here; we should be using the full name of the 
organization. 

8. Google Search: There was a Google search link in the RST for this paper a 
few days ago. I swear. 

9. Email Author, etc. descriptors: You're on the right track but I'd try these: 

Email author - Use your default email client to send an email directly to the 
paper's author(s). 

Add Comment - This feature allows users to add comments to the paper in the 
form of a message board. 

Email Others - Email others to let them know about the paper. 

Add portfolio - (To be honest, I still don't know what this feature is because 
it's never been explained to me. It seems cool, but it'll need more explanation 
than what you've given here.)
Comment 6 Eunice Yung 2002-04-25 10:36:42 PDT
Hi Pat,

don't forget to change the above URL if you want to refer to a bug.
http://research2.csci.educ.ubc.ca/pkp/ocs/my1/viewabstract.php?id=1&cf=3

1. for the position of About the Tool, we better talk to John about that, it's 
unlikely for him to change the format, let's see.

2. for define terms, there is different search engines for different RST, 
that's why xrefer not showing in Education RST

3. in the coming version of OCS, you can choose from 12 RST to suit your needs, 
those sites are chosen by Chia Ning and John, may be we can eliminate some but 
it's their decision

4. the Education Theory is the actual site engine, same as 3. 

5. same as 3

6.  Good comment, this is a bug, I will take a look in it.

7. yes full name is better than now, and I found another bug that the links are 
not working.

8. yes, i think so too, may be Kevin take it away.

9. for Add portfolio, the best thing is try it out, create a portfolio first, 
it's store in our PKP server, and you can save paper with meta data, when you 
click Create Portfolio http://www.pkp.ubc.ca/portfolio/add.php?
addurl=http://research2.csci.educ.ubc.ca/pkp/ocs/my1/viewabstract.php?id=1&cf=3
there is a pretty informative description about portfolio, read and see if you 
understand.

Comment 7 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-26 00:13:18 PDT
For Xrefer, the javascript is always included, regardless of what RST is 
being used, so technically it is always applicable (assuming you're using 
IE 5 or 6 on Windows, at least)

Pat -- I was testing some things with the RST, that's why it was changed 
to Education (it was Generic prior to that, I think). You can switch RST's in 
Step 3.6 of the Set Up. Might it be a good idea to have a "Preview" link 
below the select box for the RST here (similar to how it's done with the 
themes) to show the "about RST" info in a pop-up?

The google search seems to be only available with the Generic RST. I 
think it should be included in all RST's, as it used to be. Perhaps it could 
be added to the RST footer so it's automatically available with every RST?
Comment 8 Patrick 2002-04-26 10:38:44 PDT
Yes, I think that we need to give people the option of testing out the RST or 
at least, seeing what features particular ones have, before they select one. 
The google search should be included for all of them, too, I agree. You might 
not be aware, but it was made clear by John and Henry yesterday in our meeting 
that the RST's being used with the current OCS testing are not the most up to 
date RST's. So, you should check with John, Hencry, and Eunice to see if this 
has been updated. Let John know, though, about your suggestion to have the RST 
options available to be seen by directors in the setup step. 
Comment 9 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-26 18:56:36 PDT
They are the most up-to-date RSTs that I have, as received from Eunice 
about two weeks ago. I sent Henry an email a week ago about this, 
attaching the RSTs currently being used for him to make any updates to, 
and received no reply, so as far as I'm concerned they're the most recent.
Comment 10 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-28 13:02:23 PDT
I've added a preview RST function to the OCS set up
Comment 11 Eunice Yung 2002-04-29 00:33:45 PDT
Kevin,

in the last set of RSTs, I didn't update the look of the RST on the 
viewabstract.php, so now it looks different in the about the tool RST and the 
actual rst on viewabtract.

that's why they confuse that we are using the old RST..
I think Henry will send you a new set soon.

Eunice
Comment 12 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-29 01:12:16 PDT
Do we have to change the look for OCS? I prefer the one currently being 
used to that in the about RST pages
Comment 13 Eunice Yung 2002-04-29 10:45:45 PDT
Kevin,

they have no big changes, just some small changes in design on the 
viewabstract.php

you can see that in ABout the Tool, the RST don't look the same as 
viewabstract.php

Eunice
Comment 14 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-29 18:38:11 PDT
So is the RST being changed to match the About RST one or not? IMO the 
current RST looks much nicer than the About RST one.
Comment 15 Eunice Yung 2002-04-29 23:00:02 PDT
yes, it will be changed to match the one in the About Tool. Henry will send you 
an updated one.
Comment 16 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-29 23:31:59 PDT
Probably be easier for me to just do it then. I already have the HTML code 
from the about the RST.
Comment 17 Kevin Jamieson 2002-04-30 00:14:53 PDT
design changes done
Comment 18 Eunice Yung 2002-04-30 00:23:49 PDT
may be better email henry and make sure that the design won't change again.
Comment 19 Patrick 2002-08-18 11:39:16 PDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 221 ***
Comment 20 Patrick 2002-08-18 11:39:42 PDT
ignore last message