T
Toà n
We are deplying Outlook 2003 to users after a long time using
Netscape/corporate Times calendar and there are some major Outlook behaviors
that are strange to us.
1. Viewing folder & free/busy info
If you set the permission for the Default user to Folder Visible
(Share My Calendar > Calemdar Properties > Permissions > Check Folder
Visisble for Default name)
Then other poeple will just see a blank calendar if they try to open your
calendar to view. This is a very odd behavior because if, with the same
setting and notthing more, others try to schedule a meeting with you in a
meeting composition/planning screen, they could see your free/busy time
blocks. Of course they cannot see the contents since the permission for that
(read items) is not checked.
Expected behaviors:
Outlook should at least display things consistently. Meaning when I try to
open someone's calendar whose permission for the Default user is "Folder
Visible," I should at leat see the time blocks, similar to the calendar
scheduling view. For now, it lets me see the time blocks only if I try or
pretend that I am scheduling a meeting with that person (or pull that name up
in a group view).
A cosistent design is: view free/busy time in scheduling, and view the same
free/busy time in calendar page.
Our many vocal top level exec admins are giving the product a round of bad
rumors, and that it is not up to heavy duty use.
2. Organiser does not have "exclusive lock" on a meeting that he/she made.
Scenario:
I organized a meeting with you at 12pm today, Thursday. I sent it away to you.
You are a bit clumsy with t he mouse, so you click the view-in-calendar
option on the message and it displays on your calendar.
you went to get your coffee so your hand wouldn't shake so much, and before
you drank enough of it, you accidently moved that meeting (in calendar view)
to Friday afternoon.
Now you drink your coffee, put on your glasses, and you see a meeting on
Friday (you moved it there but didn't know):
"Ahh, crazy boss proposed a meeting at closing time on Friday, but I'll
accept it anyway." A message is sent back about your acceptance
The organizer -me, never knew you moved the meeting. And, I waited for you,
you never showed up today, at 12 pm, even though I saw you sent me an
acceptant message. Unless I carefully read the time part of that message
(which now says Friday, 5:30 pm or something), I would not know nor you would
know that the original request from em and your verions of the shaky hand
accident are now on two diffferent dates.
In our old Netscape calendar, which is not email driven, the organizer has
an exlcusive lock on meetings that person orgazises. Whether you accept,
decline, the meeting cannot be moved by you as an attendee.
I think this is a design flaw that though I described a silly one person
scenario here, the exec admins who deal with multiple calendars and multiple
meetings have a real problem with meetings that might move just half an hour
forward or back, imagine the business problems!
Any answers, work arounds?
I have many more, but I will post on a new topic because this is long already.
Netscape/corporate Times calendar and there are some major Outlook behaviors
that are strange to us.
1. Viewing folder & free/busy info
If you set the permission for the Default user to Folder Visible
(Share My Calendar > Calemdar Properties > Permissions > Check Folder
Visisble for Default name)
Then other poeple will just see a blank calendar if they try to open your
calendar to view. This is a very odd behavior because if, with the same
setting and notthing more, others try to schedule a meeting with you in a
meeting composition/planning screen, they could see your free/busy time
blocks. Of course they cannot see the contents since the permission for that
(read items) is not checked.
Expected behaviors:
Outlook should at least display things consistently. Meaning when I try to
open someone's calendar whose permission for the Default user is "Folder
Visible," I should at leat see the time blocks, similar to the calendar
scheduling view. For now, it lets me see the time blocks only if I try or
pretend that I am scheduling a meeting with that person (or pull that name up
in a group view).
A cosistent design is: view free/busy time in scheduling, and view the same
free/busy time in calendar page.
Our many vocal top level exec admins are giving the product a round of bad
rumors, and that it is not up to heavy duty use.
2. Organiser does not have "exclusive lock" on a meeting that he/she made.
Scenario:
I organized a meeting with you at 12pm today, Thursday. I sent it away to you.
You are a bit clumsy with t he mouse, so you click the view-in-calendar
option on the message and it displays on your calendar.
you went to get your coffee so your hand wouldn't shake so much, and before
you drank enough of it, you accidently moved that meeting (in calendar view)
to Friday afternoon.
Now you drink your coffee, put on your glasses, and you see a meeting on
Friday (you moved it there but didn't know):
"Ahh, crazy boss proposed a meeting at closing time on Friday, but I'll
accept it anyway." A message is sent back about your acceptance
The organizer -me, never knew you moved the meeting. And, I waited for you,
you never showed up today, at 12 pm, even though I saw you sent me an
acceptant message. Unless I carefully read the time part of that message
(which now says Friday, 5:30 pm or something), I would not know nor you would
know that the original request from em and your verions of the shaky hand
accident are now on two diffferent dates.
In our old Netscape calendar, which is not email driven, the organizer has
an exlcusive lock on meetings that person orgazises. Whether you accept,
decline, the meeting cannot be moved by you as an attendee.
I think this is a design flaw that though I described a silly one person
scenario here, the exec admins who deal with multiple calendars and multiple
meetings have a real problem with meetings that might move just half an hour
forward or back, imagine the business problems!
Any answers, work arounds?
I have many more, but I will post on a new topic because this is long already.