Which mock ups to be created:
Navigation options
- Option 1: 5 options (current one)
- Option 2: Stock Management (Physical Stock count, adjustments, Viewing). Receiving (normal and ad-hoc) and Issuing (normal ad-hoc)
- Option 3: Requisitions, Transactions (issues and receipts), and Stock activities (adjustments and physical stock counts)
Adjustment page options
Patterns
Should we have more navigational hierarchy?
Question | Discussion | Ticket | Status | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Once Stock management is selected as “on” by an implementer, can they also select which activities are “on” (i.e. choose to have any only adjustments for e.g. and record all stock management activities through adjustments). I prefer they have this ability, but open to discuss. If they can select the activities, the menu here should reflect those selections | |||
2 | Can admin/implementer re-order the dropdown menu? | Nick: should actually be doable technically? If the desire is to do this without code, becomes tricky. | ||
3 | Can admin/implementer re-group the dropdown menus? For instance, have ad-hoc receive/ad-hoc issue be part of the Receive and Fulfillment processes? Or combine Requisitions and Orders into a single dropdown?
| Nick: should actually be doable technically? If the desire is to do this without code, becomes tricky. | ||
4 | Should we consider the use of icons for stock management? In general, should stock management reference UI be more "advanced" than requisitions? How far can the look and feel for stock management differ from requisitions? | Nick: prefers phrases versus icons. Typically for lower literacy you'll want both. Icons can also get tricky and may not mean the same thing across boundaries. |
Facility Edition Demo photos
Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) Lakshmi Balachandran
Attached is the example excel that TW discussed around different user scenarios of making stock movements.