Does changing the attendance choices from three to something else exacerbate the programming complexity of implementing this suggestion?
How about the following approach?
No
Yes (Online)
Yes (In Room)
Remove the ‘Uncertain’ choice. The attendance reports appear to already assume 'Uncertain' is the default state when Yes/No is not selected.
Legend:
N/A - No attendance information found.
? - Attendance was never confirmed as Yes or No.
Y - Attendance was confirmed as attending (Yes).
R - Attendance was confirmed as attending REMOTELY (Yes, remotely).
N - Attendance was confirmed as not attending (No).
Short answer, yes. The way it is now involved a *lot* of thought, discussion, and experimentation. Suffice to say that I just do not think you fully realize how much this attendance functionality is interwoven throughout the system. Something along the lines of upgrading to central air conditioning in an old house. It was a major undertaking and I am not inclined to just be making any old changes to it.
>>> For example, consider the subtle but important detail that the system specifically checks who has stated will not be attending a meeting (and disables their list entry) before presenting you a drop-down in the agenda editor to select from for assigning someone to a role.
That one check was about a man-week of work because nothing ever existed at all like that in the agenda editor--we never disabled anyone in the drop-downs in the past. Not only did I have to come up with the logic based on attendance to disable someone in the list, but I had to figure out to best show the user "why?" in a very limited space. I eventually came up with using tool tips for the explanation, but it is not perfect... it was the best approach I could come up with in the very limited screen space. It required a lot of thought and careful consideration. You all just see that the system grays out someone in the drop-down, but there is a lot more going on there than you might think.