|
|
Post by mdeyedoc on Oct 24, 2014 15:40:58 GMT -6
The Alternate ARRA template has been updated with 4.1.17. Here's the updated design (check Use Alternative ARRA template at Admin/Company/Records tab) If you have been using the Alternate ARRA template (which my med rec uses) and have added ARRA fields directly onto the med recs tabs (as opposed to a field that links to them) many of the labels have changed. Hopefully they are pretty self-explanatory but here is a screen grab of the Alternate ARRA template and an Excel file listing the ARRA fields for the alternate ARRA tab. The FIDs and functions are the same for either ARRA version, it's just a different layout with different text for the FIDs. Marcia |
|
mitch
Beta Tester
Posts: 58 
|
Post by mitch on Oct 25, 2014 6:30:09 GMT -6
Is there a reason to use one over the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by mdeyedoc on Oct 25, 2014 21:48:23 GMT -6
Is there a reason to use one over the other? It's totally up to you (and your template). They both have the same FID numbers and functions but the text in the Alternate version is abbreviated. IF you have added ARRA fields directly to your med recs tabs, the ARRA tab you use WILL affect the text that is displayed for those fields on the tabs. Anyone using my latest template will need to use the Alternate ARRA template or text will be overlapping all over the place. Last year I offered up a redesign to allow viewing the whole tab without scrolling. I made the font smaller, shortened the text boxes for yes/no fields, decreased the spacing between rows, shortened the labels and grouped items together so they were easier to find, at least for me. That became the Alternate ARRA design. With the new items for MU2, it won't fit without scrolling any more but I rearranged some things so you don't have to scroll as much. Marcia |
|
mitch
Beta Tester
Posts: 58
|
Post by mitch on Oct 27, 2014 7:09:36 GMT -6
OK-thanks- I understand.
|
|
