More Onions - Beta version 0.2.1 - Updated

[sepefrio]

OK maybe I'm dense, a glutton for punishment or just plain crazy but I'm back for round two. I hope most will realize the suggestions I have actually implemented as a sign that I do listen to input.

I also put my house and kids (about 5 years ago) on the front in a desperate attempt to gain sympathy! But in all honesty, I would rather good constructive feedback.

And so we get off to a better start this time, the opinions I'm looking for strictly concern the format of the report. I see no point in proofing it for spelling or grammar until the format is complete. I have an editor standing by to do just that for me.

Also, I added an appliance section because the warranty I offer covers appliances. The company says I have to at least show I inspected them to meet their qualifications. I'm still kind of wishy washy on this section though, as in there may be a better way i.e removing the pictures and just listing them like in the Summary section.

I also left out most of the photo's this time so it will load faster. But each comment has the ability to have up to three pictures. The "No Image" is only shown in the first spot if there are no pictures. That gets replaced if there is at least one picture.

Lastly, I blatantly admit copying portions of others peoples reports and implementing them into this one. If you see parts of your reports here, it is a sign of respect for your opinion, not theft. But if you do have a problem with it, please PM me and I will remove it.

So, what ya got to say?

File updated, see post below for new file.

[hausdok]

Hi John,

It's a cleaner format than the last attempt but I think that placing your recommendation before the photo of the issue is a little bit awkward. The way it's laid out, if I were a non-inspector looking at it, I'd expect that one of those photos would show me a proper setup.

You've essentially broken it into Description, Observation, and Recommendations but I think that it would flow better if the recommendations come after the photos of the issue you're reporting. In other words, describe the house's electrical system and then, as you individually list electrical issues and post photos of the issue, follow that with your recommendation and then move onto the next issue.

Description

Box with your description

Observations

The ragafrap is all dicked up - Explanation with photo.

Recommendation - Have a licensed hairdresser fix the ragafrap

The cheese straightener needs a pasta handle - Explanation with photo

Recommendation - Have an Italian cook add a handle.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Jim Katen]

I'm gonna disagree with Mike. I like the idea of putting observations on the left and recommendations immediately to the right of them with the pictures coming afterward. In fact, I like it a lot. I think most people would "get" that very quickly.

I don't like putting the report number in so many places. It's unnecessary and distracting. Wouldn't placing it to the left of each system heading be enough?

The new tables look much nicer than the old ones.

It's ok to have the headings in a different font than the body, but all of the headings should share a common font. Right now, you're mixing serif & san-serif fonts and it looks jumbled.

I still think that you might have a graphic artist help you with the design. Have you considered integrating your logo into each heading? Perhaps as a watermark?

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[randynavarro]

Yea, it's still layout; crammed and just visually too busy.

The obs. and rec. numbers are also distracting - I think Jim referenced it. Why the big numbers? Although I guess it's a technical document, it's not really a technical document. Maybe something like E1, E2 (Electrical). Or maybe even simpler - 1, 2, 3, 4.

Will you plan on putting descriptions on each photo? Maybe arrows at least?

[sepefrio]

Originally posted by Jim Katen

I don't like putting the report number in so many places. It's unnecessary and distracting. Wouldn't placing it to the left of each system heading be enough?

WOOPS. Actually, 99% of those reports numbers won't be seen. I just have them visible so I am sure each table is talking to each other properly and it all linked up right. Just forgot to turn the visibility function back off.

Randy,

Yes the pictures will be marked with circles, arrows and maybe even small comments on the photo itself.

One thing that I think is being misunderstood is the Report number all over the place. Like I said above, I used it to make sure everything was talking and linking up right. In the section header, that won't be visible. In the description it will be what it says, Service capacity isn't 19990101-A, again that was for me to make sure it all talked and set up right. The Observations and Comments are also not 19990101-A. That will be replaced with the observation and recommendations I make. So ignore those numbers.

and record numbers, yeah they can be a bit smaller. Oh and Font, thanks. didn't see that.

[Brandon Chew]

I suggest you fix the font and remove the extra numbers, then post up version 0.2.1 for review. Both are very distracting and probably have an effect on the comments you are seeking (on format).

While you are at it, fix the spelling of recommendation. I know you didn't ask for spelling comments but you've used the word so much, and in headings, that it is also a distraction when trying to focus on the format.

[sepefrio]

OK done as suggested. A few things.

For Mike and Jim, I changed the Plumbing section to reflect what Mike said so we can see the difference between the two. Maybe by actually seeing it an opinion will change.

The comment Numbers - I put in three samples. In electrical there is no box around it. To me that makes it look like a misplaced number. In Plumbing, I did a thin line, the one I like the most. And in Heating and Cooling I put a thick line, the way it was. Again to visually display the difference.

The font should now be the same through out the document. California FB.

Oh and Brandon, thanks for your reccomendation! LOL

Download Attachment: Beta V0.21.pdf

754.54 KB