You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As far as I understand the factor that determines the arrangement of Plans and Networks in the corresponding columns is due date and alphabetical order respectively.
I suggest that:
Plans are arranged by due date, but maybe makes more sense that the oldest (closest to due date) is on top, since that is most probably require user's attention/contribution. Of course, if the user had the chance to order these either in descendent or ascendant due date would be even better.
Networks should be arranged by the level of user's involvement. For example, from top-down the networks which the user is:
(a) Coordinator
(b) Participant which has contributed
(c) Participant with no contributions so far
Then an alphabetical order could be the 2nd factor of course.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As far as I understand the factor that determines the arrangement of Plans and Networks in the corresponding columns is due date and alphabetical order respectively.
I suggest that:
Plans are arranged by due date, but maybe makes more sense that the oldest (closest to due date) is on top, since that is most probably require user's attention/contribution. Of course, if the user had the chance to order these either in descendent or ascendant due date would be even better.
Networks should be arranged by the level of user's involvement. For example, from top-down the networks which the user is:
(a) Coordinator
(b) Participant which has contributed
(c) Participant with no contributions so far
Then an alphabetical order could be the 2nd factor of course.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: