Gerry

Hi Chris, Unfortunately, there is no way to switch back to the old view once the final countdown has elapsed, We introduced this new view back in December 2016 with a preview mode so you could switch between the old and new view as you liked, the idea being we could iron out any problems customers had with the user experience, we provided a link for all users so they could feedback/comment here also. We recently added a 30 day countdown to give customers final notice that the new an improved view was going to become the new default and the old view would be decommissioned all in accordance with our major UI change philosophy. We have to do this if we are to keep moving forwards many of the new features added already as well as many we have planned for the future will only be applied to the new view, its not practical (or even possible) to apply new features to the old view as the new features require new features of the new view. It would have been nice to know what these "headaches" where before while we had the opportunity to address them in a timely manor please let us know what exactly the problem is, perhaps we would have a suggestion or can accommodate changes to resolve your specific workflow issues. Thanks Gerry

Hi Doug, You should be able to configure that using Progressive Capture easy enough, have a different PC for the portal to run. Gerry

Daniel, How do you get the Keyboard Shortcut Help window up? keyboard shortcut maybe Gerry

@Henrik Brattlie, Manag-E No problem, I will need to get someone from the Service Manager development team to expand on what we are doing in this regard, I am not sure where we are with it or what the exact approach is going to be, but yes I believe (please dont hold me to this) that it will be a data driven approach as you describe. Gerry

Keith, The count on the Home icon there shows how many unread posts/comments you have on one or more of your workspaces. There is difference, the two counts can be different as the notifications can contain other notifications as well. At first glance it may seem counter intuitive but in use it will make sense. Gerry

Hi Jamie, In the case of a leaver where no notice period was available, a superuser Admin can always go in an re-assign ownership of someones documents. Gerry

@PSG We have not made any progress with this request so far, its not in our 90 day window as of this time. Gerry

@PSG I will have to find out about that, my first reaction is no it would not, the task would have information about who completed it, so you could see from the task, but tasks are a platform feature so do not in themselves write back to the Service Manager call records in much the same way as completing an outlook task would not write notes into anything else. I can see why you are asking that question though and in the context of requests such an audit makes sense. I am not sure how the connection between a task and a request is made, I will have to find out and get someone to post back with an answer. Gerry

HI Lee, On the request details, at the top of the timeline you should see a [+] Follow link, click that and you are done Gerry

@DeadMeatGF WebHooks now support both basic and digest authentication, this should be available on live within the next 14 days, probably earlier. Gerry

@Martyn Houghton Yes they are, the portal would be the highest priority though because it has the potential to impact much larger audiences. The main user app is a different proposition because its a lot more complicated to cater for some of these requirements without removing functionality. I expect what we would do is aim for compliance in the portal and a long running theme of compliance in the main app. Gerry

@DeadMeatGF Ok I will organise for us to add Basic and Digest authentication support to web hooks. However this is going to depend on a new "KeySafe" feature we have added for managing credentials securely, so this will not be available for a couple of weeks. If you find out more about what you are doing (or able to do) please let us know. Gerry

@DeadMeatGF OK, that makes sense. So the problem would be, the format of the XML content emanating out of our system in the web-hook payload will not match what your orchestration needs, how would you solve that? (sorry, I dont know MS Orchestrator). We could add basic authentication to WebHooks I would have thought, as we are just introducing our own keychain solution for securely holding credentials for exactly that sort of thing. Gerry

Steve, Which orchistrator are you talking about, Microsoft Orchistrator? HP OO? something else? As Trev mentioned above, Integration is a current theme and we have some interesting stuff in the works, can we find out a bit more about what you are trying to achieve. As for the question around basic authentication, the web hooks dont support that, typically you would use HTTPS and you would provide some kind of API key as an argument on the URL, but that does very much depend on the target system you are firing web-hook originated events at. The typical scenario would be to fire the even at some "glue" code running on one of your servers and then do whatever you need from within there. Gerry

Hi Martyn, This has also come up for us in G-Cloud 9. As it currently stands we do not benchmark against this standards so although we follow best practice guidelines when it comes to UI design we could not claim any kind of compliance today. Like you guys, we also have a large number of public sector clients and so this does come up as an issue so we need to look into it further and see what needs to be done from our point of view. Its on our radar but I don't currently have any timeframe or committed plan of action to communicate. Gerry

Hi @Henrik Brattlie, Manag-E Thank for the suggestion, this has come up before and its something we want to look at, the team will investigate options and post back here once we know more. Gerry

Hi @Ronny Silooy, Thanks for the suggestion, I am not sure how practical that would be to implement, its difficult to manage once you have multiple places to pin stuff to. The icons at the top-right appear there because there is "unread" stuff, the idea being you can have fast access to the stuff that you need to action. The problem with pinning to this area is relating to responsive design issues, we always need to be mindful of the screen real estate we are taking up with new features. We will continue to evolve this, our aim is always to keep things fresh and improve usability based on customer/user feedback. Gerry

@Dan Munns Yes thats correct, the API scheduler is an example of how to schedule ad-hoc things and the power of Hornbills API, as was suggested as a work-around while we do not have this function implemented. Gerry

Hello @Dan Munns No change as yet I am afraid, its still on the list and we will get to to it. Just so we are on the same page here, I am talking about the scheduling of "Task" (or Activity) creation, not requests. [edit] just had a look at the other backlog items, we should be able to get this done in the next 3-4 weeks, I will post with an update when its on the cutting room floor. Gerry

Hi Samuel, Yes please find out more, I think if a document has been shared with you via a library with the edit permission it should work. In terms of document ownership and leavers, that is exactly right, the idea behind the design concept was to ensure that your leaver process should include the need for someone to go through the documents they are responsible for and either re-assign ownership or remove from the system before they leave - again designed to help you stop the burden of documents rotting. This has come up before and not everyone likes the system to be so ridged but in truth its good for businesses as most are plagued with documents and other file content that no one is responsible for, its a massive hidden costs that most businesses don't even recognise as a problem, they just throw more disk space at it and let the IT guys worry about it. Gerry

Hi Samuel, On the first point, we specifically designed document manager to "encourage" ownership and responsibility for documents to prevent the document rot that you typically see on a corporate network drive. By ensuring that every document has an owner then you can ensure that there is someone responsible for the document, to review it, to ask questions about it etc...making it possible to assign ownership to a group would go against that design goal. On the second point, you can add a document to a library and that library can be shared with individuals or groups alike, I would suggest the best route forward would be to use libraries to logically group your documents, and then share the libraries with the users/groups you need to. Does that work for you? Gerry

@PSG I am not sure you can...I will need to ask the SM dev and support team, I was suggesting it would be better to take this approach rather than trying to make the two date fields correlate somehow, this may well require a product enhancement. @James Ainsworth can you look into this one with the dev team? Gerry

Just to confirm the next platform update will be by the end of this week so you should see these features appear. Gerry

@PSG Hi Jamie, Right I have gotten to the bottom of this now so I will do my best to explain our thinking. So first thing to note is that the tasks system was designed to deal with individuals and their tasks, and not the management of tasks for teams like you would see on a service desk. The crux of this means that a task is assigned to EITHER a group OR a USER and not both. Now because a user can be a member of multiple GROUP's its not possible to control visibility of tasks by group, the security and underlying data model would just not allow that. So the problem we want to solve is to deal with the visibility (and actioning) of tasks when someone is not available, say for example they are unexpectedly off sick. So what we are going to introduce is the idea of "delegation" and "switching context". At a very high level, this is how it would work. * Each user would have the ability in their profile to set up "delegates", this is where they can name one or more people who they will delegate the rights to view/action their tasks. * A user that has been given delegation rights to another users tasks would be able to temporarily "Switch" their context to that other users view, so they would see the same view of tasks as the user who has given them delegation rights. Hopefully I have explained that well enough - does that make sense? and does that solve your problem? Gerry

Hey Lyonel, We have had a few days delay in our next platform push, its all implemented and is on our beta stream but has not yet made to live. This I expect will happen on Monday or Tuesday next week. You will know because Harry Hornbill will come knocking and give you a few new updates. I am glad you like the feature. Gerry