Check all barcodes

[ElDeveloper]

The current workflow specifies that you should click on a checkbox for every barcode that you receive, this is fine for 5-10 barcodes but becomes kinda tedious for more than 100 which some projects have.

What do other people think about this?

cc @antgonza

[antgonza]

I like it.

[adamrp]

Just to be clear @antgonza, what do you like: the current system of
clicking checkboxes, or the implied proposal to change the system to
something else?

I don't know what we could do differently, short of omitting the
verification step. Maybe we could work the barcode scanner in to this
somehow (e.g., using javascript) so that the checkbox for a barcode is
checked automatically when it's scanned? That might assuage some of the
tedium for projects where the person receiving the sample tubes is right
here in the lab, at least.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Antonio Gonzalez [email protected]
wrote:

I like it.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

[ackermag]

Maybe we should be asking the people in the wetlab who (I believe most
commonly) receive the sample tubes?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:19 AM, adamrp [email protected] wrote:

Just to be clear @antgonza, what do you like: the current system of
clicking checkboxes, or the implied proposal to change the system to
something else?

I don't know what we could do differently, short of omitting the
verification step. Maybe we could work the barcode scanner in to this
somehow (e.g., using javascript) so that the checkbox for a barcode is
checked automatically when it's scanned? That might assuage some of the
tedium for projects where the person receiving the sample tubes is right
here in the lab, at least.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Antonio Gonzalez <
[email protected]>
wrote:

I like it.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

Gail Ackermann
Knight Lab UCB 596
University of Colorado
Boulder

[antgonza]

I believe this is separate from the wetlab. Adam, I like the idea of not
having to click n times to select all kits but just have a select all
option.

[adamrp]

I personally don't like the "select all" solution because it defeats the
purpose of this step, which is to ensure that you received the barcodes you
were supposed to receive. If we are thinking of including a Select All,
then we should just remove this step instead, which I would be fine with,
but perhaps others feel differently?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Antonio Gonzalez [email protected]
wrote:

I believe this is separate from the wetlab. Adam, I like the idea of not
having to click n times to select all kits but just have a select all
option.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

[antgonza]

I think is a good idea to have it for those situations where you got n
samples and n-x belong to one person and x to another. However, when n > 5
this becomes a pain when all n belongs to the same participant.

[teravest]

I feel like this is a special case, and not something we should change the
main participant process for.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Antonio Gonzalez [email protected]
wrote:

I think is a good idea to have it for those situations where you got n
samples and n-x belong to one person and x to another. However, when n > 5
this becomes a pain when all n belongs to the same participant.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

[antgonza]

I guess that if you have to do it really ofter you would feel differently.
Anyway, what about if n > 10 then add select-all-button?

[ackermag]

I think I agree with Emily

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Antonio Gonzalez <[email protected]

wrote:

I guess that if you have to do it really ofter you would feel differently.
Anyway, what about if n > 10 then add select-all-button?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

Gail Ackermann
Knight Lab UCB 596
University of Colorado
Boulder

[teravest]

These 100 swab kits are a special case project if it is really too much
work we can use the database to make the kit as verified after you register
it....

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:47 AM, ackermag [email protected] wrote:

I think I agree with Emily

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Antonio Gonzalez <
[email protected]

wrote:

I guess that if you have to do it really ofter you would feel
differently.
Anyway, what about if n > 10 then add select-all-button?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

Gail Ackermann
Knight Lab UCB 596
University of Colorado
Boulder

—

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

[ElDeveloper]

What about n > 50, those are rare cases and you are usually dealing with
n > 100 right @antgonza? What I worry is that users who actually need to
verify they received the correct barcodes will not because this option
is available.

On (Jul-22-14|21:17), Antonio Gonzalez wrote:

I guess that if you have to do it really ofter you would feel differently.
Anyway, what about if n > 10 then add select-all-button?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#706 (comment)

[adamrp]

I like @teravest's suggestion; in cases where this is actually too tedious,
it is almost certainly a special case, and you should just ask one of us to
update it for you. I share Yoshiki's concern that if ever we include a
"select all" button, people will not actually be verifying their kits, but
rather just perfunctorily going through the motions.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Yoshiki Vázquez Baeza <
[email protected]> wrote:

What about n > 50, those are rare cases and you are usually dealing with
n > 100 right @antgonza? What I worry is that users who actually need to
verify they received the correct barcodes will not because this option
is available.

On (Jul-22-14|21:17), Antonio Gonzalez wrote:

I guess that if you have to do it really ofter you would feel
differently.
Anyway, what about if n > 10 then add select-all-button?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#706 (comment)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#706 (comment).

[antgonza]

OK I agree with that solution. Now is there a better solution for the
verification compared as how is it handled right now?

[wasade]

@antgonza, are you asking about a different general solution or how to proceed right now? I'm not aware of an issue for the majority of the participants with the current process.

[antgonza]

Different general solution. Having to check a box doesn't actually mean
that the user is checking it, right? What about having all checkboxes
selected?