| Issue Number | 3448 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Summaries] Advisory Board Mailing Letter for Email Correspondence Mailer |
| Created | 2011-11-09 14:38:53 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Juthe, Robin (NIH/NCI) [E] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2012-03-29 09:09:50 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/ocecdr/issue.107776 |
BZISSUE::5142
BZDATETIME::2011-11-09 14:38:53
BZCREATOR::Robin Juthe
BZASSIGNEE::Bob Kline
BZQACONTACT::William Osei-Poku
We would like to create a new correspondence mailer to be sent to Advisory Board members when we send them summaries to review.
We plan to have two different versions of the letter - one that we will attach to an email we send them with an electronic version of the summary (which we will create separately) and one that will be sent via FedEx with a paper copy of the summary.
The email version of the letter is in the CDR (on Bach) in a miscellaneous document - CDR 716201. We also have a page of instructions that should be generated as page 2 of the correspondence mailer. This is also in the CDR (on Bach) in a misc. document - CDR 716202.
The documents are also on Mahler (for testing) - CDR 696915 and CDR 696916.
We would like to add this to the list of Advisory Board letters on
the PDQ Board
Member Correspondence Mailers interface. The letter should be named:
Advisory Board Mailing Letter for Email
Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks!
BZDATETIME::2011-11-17 11:40:13
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::1
The mailer system will depend on the stability of the titles of the miscellaneous documents. Currently the titles of the two documents posted for this task are:
Advisory Board Mailing Letter for Email
Advisory Board Mailing Letter Instructions
I can imagine someone coming along later, comparing these titles with the titles of the other miscellaneous documents for board member mailers, and thinking "these titles are so generic that they could be confused to refer to any advisory board member mailer" and decide they should be changed to make it clear which mailer these documents belong to. If there's a possibility that this might happen in the future, better to have it happen now.
BZDATETIME::2011-11-17 11:49:05
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::2
(In reply to comment #1)
> The mailer system will depend on the stability of the titles of
the
> miscellaneous documents. Currently the titles of the two documents
posted for
> this task are:
> * Advisory Board Mailing Letter for Email
> * Advisory Board Mailing Letter Instructions
> I can imagine someone coming along later, comparing these titles
with the
> titles of the other miscellaneous documents for board member
mailers, and
> thinking "these titles are so generic that they could be confused
to refer to
> any advisory board member mailer" and decide they should be changed
to make it
> clear which mailer these documents belong to. If there's a
possibility that
> this might happen in the future, better to have it happen now.
Let's change the titles to:
Advisory Board Review Letter for Email
Advisory Board Review Instructions
BZDATETIME::2011-11-17 16:28:24
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::3
You can test the email version of the letter on Mahler (as soon as you've changed the titles of the Miscellaneous documents).
BZDATETIME::2011-11-21 14:08:56
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::4
(In reply to comment #3)
> You can test the email version of the letter on Mahler (as soon as
you've
> changed the titles of the Miscellaneous documents).
I reviewed this on Mahler and noticed a few things:
1. There's an extra ".nih.gov" at the end of the Board manager's email address in the final paragraph of the letter.
2. The title is missing from the page of instructions.
3. We would like the name/address in the signature line to be for the Board manager (not the Editor-in-chief). Sorry I failed to mention that before.
4. Could the name of the mailing in the correspondence mailer checklist be changed to "Advisory Board Review Letter for Email". This will match the new name of the document.
5. The font size looks small. Preferably we would use 12pt font, but even 11 would be better. We might be able to eliminate some of the space before and after the "Sincerely," line in the letter to keep it to a single page.
BZDATETIME::2011-11-22 09:23:39
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::5
(In reply to comment #4)
> 1. There's an extra ".nih.gov" at the end of the Board manager's
email address
> in the final paragraph of the letter.
Data error (happens more than once). The documents need to be fixed.
> 2. The title is missing from the page of instructions.
What would you like (didn't get a sample for these letters)?
> 3. We would like the name/address in the signature line to be
for the Board
> manager (not the Editor-in-chief). Sorry I failed to mention that
before.
Changed.
> 4. Could the name of the mailing in the correspondence mailer
checklist be
> changed to "Advisory Board Review Letter for Email". This will
match the new
> name of the document.
Done.
> 5. The font size looks small. Preferably we would use 12pt font,
but even 11
> would be better. We might be able to eliminate some of the space
before and
> after the "Sincerely," line in the letter to keep it to a single
page.
Font set to 12pt (bumps cover letter to two pages).
BZDATETIME::2011-11-30 17:55:13
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::6
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > 1. There's an extra ".nih.gov" at the end of the Board
manager's email address
> > in the final paragraph of the letter.
> Data error (happens more than once). The documents need to be
fixed.
Errors fixed.
> > 2. The title is missing from the page of
instructions.
> What would you like (didn't get a sample for these letters)?
I will attached a sample letter in the next comment. Sorry about that!
BZDATETIME::2011-11-30 17:56:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::7
Sample letter attached. Please see my comments in the attached doc about the Board manager signature block and the title for the instruction sheet. Thanks.
Attachment AB Review Letter for Email Example.doc has been added with description: AB Review Letter for Email Example
BZDATETIME::2011-12-06 08:45:28
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::8
(In reply to comment #7)
> Sample letter attached. ....
>
> Ph: 301-496-4385 fax: 301-480-8105 e-mail:
squint@mail.nih.gov
> Comment [N3]: Please add this.
Can I assume that you want the phone number and the email address generated dynamically, but the fax number hard-coded? I don't see a fax number in the PDQBoardInformation block.
If that assumption is correct, then the requested changes are ready to be tested on Mahler.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-06 10:10:53
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::9
(In reply to comment #8)
> Can I assume that you want the phone number and the email address
generated
> dynamically, but the fax number hard-coded?
Yes, that is correct.
> If that assumption is correct, then the requested changes are
ready to be
> tested on Mahler.
Looks good on Mahler, but please bump the word "Enclosure" to the line below the Board manager signature block before promoting it to Bach.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-06 10:30:34
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::10
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Can I assume that you want the phone number and the email
address generated
> > dynamically, but the fax number hard-coded?
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
> > If that assumption is correct, then the requested changes are
ready to be
> > tested on Mahler.
>
> Looks good on Mahler, but please bump the word "Enclosure" to the
line below
> the Board manager signature block before promoting it to Bach.
"Enclosure" has been moved. Don't forget there's another letter for this task.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-06 10:38:51
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::11
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > Can I assume that you want the phone number and the email
address generated
> > > dynamically, but the fax number hard-coded?
> >
> > Yes, that is correct.
> >
> > > If that assumption is correct, then the requested changes
are ready to be
> > > tested on Mahler.
> >
> > Looks good on Mahler, but please bump the word "Enclosure" to
the line below
> > the Board manager signature block before promoting it to
Bach.
> "Enclosure" has been moved. Don't forget there's another letter for
this task.
Looks good. Please promote.
I haven't received the second letter, but that shouldn't stop us from making this one available for use. I plan to open a separate issue (and reference this issue) when the second letter is ready. Would that be OK?
BZDATETIME::2011-12-06 15:40:19
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::12
(In reply to comment #11)
> Looks good. Please promote.
Promoted to Bach and Franck.
>
> I haven't received the second letter, but that shouldn't stop us
from making
> this one available for use. I plan to open a separate issue (and
reference this
> issue) when the second letter is ready. Would that be OK?
Sure.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 15:34:42
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::13
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > Looks good. Please promote.
> Promoted to Bach and Franck.
Looks good on Bach. Thanks!
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 15:41:35
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::14
The second letter was finalized today, so we can keep this issue open afterall. The document on Mahler is CDR696924. It is CDR719366 on Bach.
The name of the letter is:
Advisory Board Review Letter for FedEx
There are only a few small editorial differences between the first and second letter. The instruction document appended to the letter is the same for both types of letters (with the same heading). The signature block should again be for the Board manager and formatted the same way as it was for the first letter.
Do you need a sample letter?
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 16:10:03
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::15
(In reply to comment #14)
> Do you need a sample letter?
Nope. Ready for testing on Mahler.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 16:14:08
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::16
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > Do you need a sample letter?
> Nope. Ready for testing on Mahler.
Just ran it on Mahler and the text of the letter did not display.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 16:23:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::17
(In reply to comment #16)
> Just ran it on Mahler and the text of the letter did not display.
The structure for the miscellaneous docs used for these mailers has been
<MiscellaneousDocument>
<MiscellaneousDocumentText>
<Para>
<Para>
:
:
But this one uses a different structure:
<MiscellaneousDocument>
<MiscellaneousDocumentText>
<Section>
<Para>
<Para>
:
:
So the software doesn't find any child elements of the MiscellaneousDocumentText that it knows how to render as RTF. Unless there's a convincing use case for formatting some letters differently than we have done in the past, using nested Section wrappers to convey this difference to the software, I recommend modifying the miscellaneous document to conform to what we've always done in the past, rather than rewriting the software to accommodate the additional structural complexity.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 16:27:26
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::18
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > Just ran it on Mahler and the text of the letter did not
display.
> The structure for the miscellaneous docs used for these mailers has
been
> <MiscellaneousDocument>
> <MiscellaneousDocumentText>
> <Para>
> <Para>
> :
> :
> But this one uses a different structure:
> <MiscellaneousDocument>
> <MiscellaneousDocumentText>
> <Section>
> <Para>
> <Para>
> :
> :
> So the software doesn't find any child elements of the
> MiscellaneousDocumentText that it knows how to render as RTF.
Unless there's a
> convincing use case for formatting some letters differently than we
have done
> in the past, using nested Section wrappers to convey this
difference to the
> software, I recommend modifying the miscellaneous document to
conform to what
> we've always done in the past, rather than rewriting the software
to
> accommodate the additional structural complexity.
Removed the section tags on Mahler and Bach. I'll try it again now.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 16:38:31
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::19
It looks good on Mahler now. Please promote to Bach.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-07 16:55:21
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::20
(In reply to comment #19)
> Please promote to Bach.
Done.
BZDATETIME::2011-12-08 08:55:15
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::21
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > Please promote to Bach.
> Done.
The letter looks good on Bach. Thanks! Closing issue.
BZDATETIME::2012-03-01 11:57:55
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::22
These two Advisory Board letters seem to have disappeared from the correspondence mailer menu on Bach. The letters are:
Advisory Board Review Letter for Email
Advisory Board Review Letter for FedEx
BZDATETIME::2012-03-08 14:44:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::23
(In reply to comment #22)
> These two Advisory Board letters seem to have disappeared from
the
> correspondence mailer menu on Bach. The letters are:
>
> Advisory Board Review Letter for Email
> Advisory Board Review Letter for FedEx
Restored. Please verify that it's working properly.
BZDATETIME::2012-03-29 09:09:50
BZCOMMENTOR::Robin Juthe
BZCOMMENT::24
(In reply to comment #23)
> Restored. Please verify that it's working properly.
I verified each of these mailers on Bach. Thanks. Closing issue.
| File Name | Posted | User |
|---|---|---|
| AB Review Letter for Email Example.doc | 2011-11-30 17:56:37 |
Elapsed: 0:00:00.001725