After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 348400 - Recurrence rule dialogue is ambiguous
Recurrence rule dialogue is ambiguous
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Calendar
3.2.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-calendar-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks: 317266
 
 
Reported: 2006-07-23 10:31 UTC by Simon Hepburn
Modified: 2017-08-24 15:43 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 3.1/3.2


Attachments
Screenshot of recurrence rule dialogue (28.85 KB, image/png)
2006-07-23 18:14 UTC, Simon Hepburn
Details

Description Simon Hepburn 2006-07-23 10:31:40 UTC
If I create a recurrence rule such as:

appointment recurs every 1 week on mon, tue, wed, thur, fri for 4 occurrences

it is not clear if it means:

appointment recurs every 1 week on mon, tue, wed, thur, fri for 4 days

or:

appointment recurs every 1 week on mon, tue, wed, thur, fri for 4 weeks

screenshot: http://librarian.launchpad.net/3517657/RecurrenceRule.png

Instead of selecting number of occurences it would be better if you could select number of days|weeks|months



Other information:
related bug reports:

https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/53684
http://bugzilla.openedhand.com/show_bug.cgi?id=128
Comment 1 Karsten Bräckelmann 2006-07-23 13:56:30 UTC
The external screenshot link (at least currently) is broken. Please attach screenshots and other relevant files to bugzilla, only. (See the "Create a new attachment" link below.)


Anyway, just reproduced:

The Preview in the Recurrence editor shows this, by displaying the day numbers in a bold font-weight. Occurrence equals Appoinment always.


So we do have feedback that indicates this. However, I do agree that this is slightly confusing and ambiguous, at the very least with a timespan exceeding the 3 month preview. The visual feedback is too unobtrusive.

Confirming.
Comment 2 Simon Hepburn 2006-07-23 18:14:34 UTC
Created attachment 69430 [details]
Screenshot of recurrence rule dialogue
Comment 3 Simon Hepburn 2006-07-23 18:25:10 UTC
Agree with your comments, additionaly:

* day numbers are only shown in bold during creation of rule, not when reviewing an existing rule [as in attached screenshot].

* If occurence = appointment always, maybe a good first step would be to
replace the term occurences with appointments? I guess the difference is
perspective - from a programmers perspective you creating multiple occurences
of the same appointment. From a users perspective he/she is simply creating
multiple appointments, the recurrence rule is just a tool to make it easier.

To be fair to Evo, some of the confusion I experienced stems from the fact that
my online calendar was showing events for 4 weeks and I assumed that Evo was
not displaying recurring appointments correctly. I have since deduced that it
is my calendar server at fault, not Evolution - see the ubuntu bug when
launchpad.net is reachable again.

Comment 4 Milan Crha 2017-08-24 15:43:19 UTC
Thanks for a bug report. I'm closing this, because describing pretty complex rules on one line somehow always leads to fail. I agree that "N occurrences" is confusing in this case, but I do not think that "N appointments" would make it any better. It confuses me more, to be honest, but it can be that I'm just used to the "occurrence" word.

As had been pointed out above, the preview panel is meant to make things clearer. You can enlarge the window, then more months are shown. The preview is intentionally "disabled" when an instance of a recurring event is opened. There is no way to open the master object again, once the component is saved; such thing would require asking on the editor open whether to open whole series, or to edit only the instance, instead of asking basically the same on save of the changes in the editor. I did think of removing this limitation in the not so distant past, but I finally decided not to change it. I thought that it would be confusing to show whole recurrence rule for a single instance in the editor, though I can be wrong.

In any case, I would keep things as they are.