BCMS Tracking and History Details User Stories
You asked me to summarize the BCMS tracking and history details user stories / use cases surrounding the bug issues we logged and usability issues expressed. I tried to do this through annotated UI screenshots summarizing user-expressed pain points and user requirements based on real-time testing, in some cases for real production at this point for parts of our production workflows.
Main User Story and Acceptance Criteria
BCMS users need sufficient in-context tracking and history details to know 1) what they need to do for timely submission to Bookself and 2) who (user or system) did what when to troubleshoot a workflow problem that delays processing or could cause data integrity issues in the Bookshelf repository and its display and indexing. BCMS users expect for these tracking and history details to be transparent, accurate, and persistently stable for these high level user requirements.
- Timestamps clearly note AM/PM via time structure (e.g., 17:00) or by use of AM/PM
- Timestamps are all in the same time zone as Bookshelf headquarters (DC time)
- System actions are clearly noted as BCMS system actions
- Any NCBI integration workflow steps are clearly noted as NCBI system if timestamp is provided by NCBI and passed unreview by BCMS
- Any and all NCBI integration workflow steps have a link to the Task Manager session for NCBI staff troubleshooting
- User names are accurate using the BCMS username
- All timestamps, system actions, and user details are accurate and persistently stable
UI Contexts, Paint Points, and User Requirements
The following are pain points, questions, and user requirements based on users using the BCMS to date.
CHAPTER FILES MANAGEMENT
Same feed back as Book TOC - also needs more testing
BOOK FILES MANAGEMENT
Same as Chapter Files Management - may have additional input as test, such as content type on all main component pages and by files for book versions to aid QA and troubleshooting
Images also available as slides -