-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
director's view time/date for archival work is confusing #3021
Comments
(Amusingly the CM for BUAP all comes in with less confusing dates because that is being automatically imported and it knows the record was actually created in 2012. But I guess even for CM it is the displayed date chosen by the archaeologist, the date of finding, not the date of record creation, that makes more sense.) |
I do kinda get the point, but not all record type have a manual date. Sure, we could use the opening (or closing?) date of the locus, the "date of creation" (which appears to be too ambiguous a term in this context) for a unit and the "date collected" for the cm record. But to me this also feels like you are using the director's view for something it isn't designed for -> looking at the particular data in detail. It is designed to see what your team was doing on that day or the day before. However, I could make these changes for those record types. I don't see any harm for real time field work coming from it. |
In terms of getting a quick overview of what people had done, it kept making me think they had not entered the dates properly, which would be a real problem for the data. And is easy to do, since inputting the current date is the click of a button. It was a real use case, checking on the work of the BUAP team! |
Kiosk 1.6.14
|
The dates are all from 2012 now (I'm looking at 27 XII 2024) so this looks fine I think. |
Using Director's View when looking at a team that is inputting archival data turns out to be a bit confusing because the dates displayed are invariably the creation dates of the records. Fine when you're in the field, and that matches the date of the thing itself, but confusing with archival stuff which then looks in DV as though it were from today when it is in fact from long ago. For OPs and loci, I would rather see opening dates.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: