- This topic has 4 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We have a screen that displays an overview on screen that can be printed as well. Both the screen and the printout are identical and together they count as one EO. In an enhancement project the print option is removed. Does this change the EO?
Originally posted in Dutch by Andreas Schuderer
Er bestaat een raadpleegscherm waar een rapport (UF) op het scherm of als printout aangeboden wordt (identieke indeling en logische verwerking). Conform NESMA wordt voor beide verschijningsvormen maar 1 UF geteld. In een te tellen onderhoudsproject wordt de printmogelijkheid weggehaald. Wijzigt de UF daardoor wel of niet?Barnali,
I don’t agree. The original EO contained information on where to direct the output. After the change this is no longer necessary. So either an attribute has become obsolete, or the logic has changed. Either way I would count a changed EO.
Ian
Yes, it’s not, by removing the details will not change the EO and it will just adjust to its default function, unless you alter and plan to change or edit. It is the same process we have done for our published books that reprinted at http://www.digitekprinting.com/bound-mix-color.
When I first read this topic, I thought it was a question that was easy to answer. I am Dutch by origin so I am used to the Dutch version of the Nesma definitions and counting guidelines. In section 4.23 of the Dutch version it is explictly stated that for the trigger that initiates a transaction, exactly one DET should be counted, regardless of the number of places, manners or steps from which the transaction can be started. Removing the print-button changes this DET, so the EO should be considered as changed.
In order to reply on this topic, I wanted to quote from the English version of the Nesma definitions and counting guidelines, but to my surprise, section 4.23 seems to be lost in the translation to the English version. This section (“Generic rules for counting data-element-types”) is omitted from the English version, together with all cross-references to it. Even some of the Practical situation in chapter 11 have been altered in order to avoid th ecross-reference to this omitted section. This seems a bit strange.
Based on the Dutch version, I would say definately yes to the question. Yes, the EO is changed.
Based on the English version, I don’t have a definite answer right away, as I haven’t found an explicit definition or guideline on this topic on this short notice… Logically, my gut feeling says the the EO is changed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.