1 comment

  • Avatar
    Jason Shangold
    • FredericBarbier

      Isn't this the same as "DIAGRAMS CENTERED"?

      • mark.crosby1.1

        I think there is a difference. We used to position the top left-hand corner of the diagram at the top left-hand corner of the modeling window. When we reopened the model, the diagram was still in the same position. Note that the diagram may have been larger than would fit in the modeling window – so only the upper left-hand portion would have been visible. This would not have been centered, then. In r7 the diagrams would always open at the same position there were left in.


        In 9.5.02, after saving and reopening the model, the diagram(s) are not in the same position – they have moved elsewhere.



        Mark Crosby

        Senior Product Manager

        Architecture & Modeling Solutions




        Analytic Data Platforms | Applications | Services




        The information contained in this message is private and confidential, is the property of Teradata Corporation, and is solely for the use of its intended recipient.  If you are not the person to whom this e-mail is addressed, or if it has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.  If you are not the intended recipient, please note that permission to use, copy, disclose, alter, or distribute this message, and any attachments, is expressly denied.

        PPlease consider the environment before printing.

    • GarryG

      So I am assuming then that the ask is to leave things where they were put, and I believe that this is a reasonable request.   I am still trying to get used to the model being in the middle of my screen instead of justified to the top left of it as in all pre R8 versions.


      I voted this up based on my assumption of what the ask is, and in line with Mark's thoughts, but it is not what I would consider to be  high priority item.   This is where the this Idea wall fails in my estimation. We should be able to assign a point value to give a sense of relative importance.  Now I cannot rescind my vote and if I vote it down, it means I do not agree with it, and the relative score of + 3 when I came in drops to 2 instead of leaving it at 3.

      • randmatt

        Couldn't agree more Garry on the need for something more granular than simply "yes or no". Even a simple choice of "Must have" or "Nice to have" would make a big difference I feel. As it stands I'm afraid to up-vote something I agree with if I don't think it's very important just because I would hate to pull attention from higher priority items, when in fact some of those could easily be "low hanging fruit" that could be easily addressed along with other larger changes.

        • GarryG

          Glad to see that I am not alone on my thinking. Way back when, when  Ideation first debut, I raised an issue on the Ideation site to this affect, but it seems like it did not receive any traction though.

          My biggest fear of this whole idea wall working is that if others think along the lines you and I do, then they won't vote at all  for some of the nice to haves and as you put it the easy to do low hanging fruit.

          I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

    • TheovanWestrienen

      I think that voters should add a comment, explaining why they are pro or con. I have changed my vote once or twice already due to comments of others.

      the same comments do also indicate how important an Idea is to the voters.


      I would almost say that Ideas without comments are not so important ...

      When you find an Idea important, you should explain to other voters why you think it is important, and so convince other voters to vote along with you.


      I am sure that people like Neil will appreciate those comments, and are able to include these in the decision defining the appropriate priority / development actions

      And by the way, I agree that a weighted voting or a more granular choice could improve the Idea functionality. For now i would suggest: use the options that the current functionality is offering us.

      • FredericBarbier

        I completely agree with Theo.

        Problem with some of the ideas is that they are not described unambiguously or with enough detail. They are not requirements. Also, there are often different ways of implementing an idea/requirements. Before putting a vote on something I think it would be good to have some discussion about an idea first, to iron out ambiguities, to describe in enough detail how the idea could/should be implemented, and to agree on it. What could happen otherwise is that you agree there is a need for the feature "described" to the idea, but that the way it is implemented by the dev team is not at all what you expected.

        Does that make sense?

    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk