Hello
As a regular user of WebRegMT, I find it useful but that there is room for improvement.
For example, it is possible to enter a reference and a description for each file, but the email notifications only include the reference. Would it not be possible to include the description as well? Perhaps a preference setting could be set up so that user can choose the information they want included in the email?
G
Suggestion for improvement to WEBRegMT
Suggestion for improvement to WEBRegMT
Good suggestion. Here is another one:
Could you please explicitly display, in the notification email we receive, the last status change that generates this notification? Because some status changes are not really interesting and, hence, do not require checking the register (plus login).
Could you please explicitly display, in the notification email we receive, the last status change that generates this notification? Because some status changes are not really interesting and, hence, do not require checking the register (plus login).
Kind regards
RLG
RLG
Wishes do come true
Great work on the new WEBRegMT. Looks great and I've managed to import all 241 of my live cases. Hooray!
The new emails are great - with the mention of the status change that generated the email. However, this status change is not listed on the website's list of changed files. Would that be possible?
I'm also still waiting to hear if it will be possible for email notifications to include the case decription as well as the reference.
Thanks
G
The new emails are great - with the mention of the status change that generated the email. However, this status change is not listed on the website's list of changed files. Would that be possible?
I'm also still waiting to hear if it will be possible for email notifications to include the case decription as well as the reference.
Thanks
G
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:24 am
- Contact:
Hi
Thanks for the reply!
By status change, I mean the event that triggered the update isn't on the website.
So, for example, the email update has the following fields:
Appl./Publ. No. Appl. No. Reference Date of change Event
And, under Date and Event, you'd get:
2008-01-04 Change - applicant
2008-01-04 Change - representative
telling you what had actually changed on the register.
But, on the WegRegMT interface on the website, the only fields displayed are:
Appl./Publ. No. Appl. No. Date of Change Reference Description
ie there is no event field, which would be very useful when reviewing the changes online rather than just relying on the email.
Thanks for the reply!
By status change, I mean the event that triggered the update isn't on the website.
So, for example, the email update has the following fields:
Appl./Publ. No. Appl. No. Reference Date of change Event
And, under Date and Event, you'd get:
2008-01-04 Change - applicant
2008-01-04 Change - representative
telling you what had actually changed on the register.
But, on the WegRegMT interface on the website, the only fields displayed are:
Appl./Publ. No. Appl. No. Date of Change Reference Description
ie there is no event field, which would be very useful when reviewing the changes online rather than just relying on the email.
Wishes do come true
Yes, as Gerontius said, the improvements to WebRegMT are very useful.
Thanks for materializing our wishes.
Thanks for materializing our wishes.
Kind regards
RLG
RLG
No event field
Hi Gerontius,Gerontius wrote:Hi
Thanks for the reply!
By status change, I mean the event that triggered the update isn't on the website.
So, for example, the email update has the following fields:
Appl./Publ. No. Appl. No. Reference Date of change Event
And, under Date and Event, you'd get:
2008-01-04 Change - applicant
2008-01-04 Change - representative
telling you what had actually changed on the register.
But, on the WegRegMT interface on the website, the only fields displayed are:
Appl./Publ. No. Appl. No. Date of Change Reference Description
ie there is no event field, which would be very useful when reviewing the changes online rather than just relying on the email.
I agree it would be useful and we did considerd doing this, but there is a problem with determining the last event. The WebRegMT processing sees only date stamps (not timestamps), so when there is more that one change in a day the last one cannot be determined. The decision was therefore not to include this information as in some cases it would be inaccurate.
The same issue exists for the e-mailed information, but there it's acceptable because we list all events and include a caveat about the order in which they appear.
It would require changes to our internal systems to fix this, and I'm not aware of any plans to do this.
Chris Wood
My.epoline development
My.epoline development