FY2016 Review of Screen Shots and Edit Checks

To:

Rachel Levenstein

From:

Matt Birnbaum

CC:

Timothy Owens, Marisa Pelczar

Date:

September 22, 2016

Re:

Review of Screenshots of the Web Tool and Edit Checks

The following summarize our initial review of the documents you provided to us on September
8, 2016 for the screenshots of the web tool (Deliverable #3.1.1) and edit checks (Deliverable
#3.3.3). Given timing, we suggest you review let us know of concerns and/or
recommendations.
1. Page 6 -- please change “complete” to “continue” in the pop-up window.
2. On the bottom of Page 7 and elsewhere, the identification number for a selected field in
the drop-down window seems to be based on the old numbering scheme. Please verify
that the system will actually show the new number item.
3. Page 10 --there are a number of fields that are reported as fatal errors. Can you clarify?
Is this because data are pre-populated, or is there some other explanation?
4. Page 15 – E-080 is reported as both a fatal error and needing to be
confirmed/explained. Can you explain why this field prompts both types of errors?
5. Page 20 – Is there any cross-check between J-080 and J-080.X? We want to ensure that
user burden is reduced by ensuring that J-080 matches the sum of J.080.1…J.080.10.
6. Page 20 – Please change the look and feel so that J.080.X appears connected to J.080
rather than to J.090.
7. Please clarify role of edict checks for J.080 (modified and new).
The SLAA FY 2016 Questionnaire should include a note somewhere that clarifies the interplay
between the old and new numbering systems since both appear on the document. We also are
not sure where the instructions for users go as they do not appear in this document.