In full agreement.
Cloning courses is standard and not going away so DLC HAS to find a way to make it work. Honestly with so many annual conferences, I think we clone more than we genuinely have the need for new course pages altogether. Even if it is a first-time course, parts of page set-ups won’t change so cloning is still faster than starting over.
DLC’s answer to this has been that you can make applications have fields that will auto-fill some of the fields in the course itself. But I’ve found a couple of issues with that process and alot of the fields I keep when cloning an existing course, aren’t things we’d collect on an application (like our standard accreditation language, course instructions, registration instructions, etc).
If the audit trail is a concern, then just mark the fact an administrator overrode the standard process and is choosing to attach an application to a cloned course. Done.
100% should be able to:
A. Bounce the application between more than the submitter and the CME reviewer.
Adopting some of the RSS workflow is a good idea. We use “Action Required” as the status to let coordinators know their session needs edits. We could envision using that for the application, and similar to the RSS e-mail, there is the status change and a workflow comment section where we write why we need changes or anything else the applicant needs to know.
But even if that isn’t technically feasible, there is a plethora of apps and programs that use different workflows for form editing, I’d be hard-pressed to believe there is absolutely no way to do it.
B. Archive an application without sending e-mails.
We’d never archive an application that isn’t either rejected or in the state of approved. But you can’t archive without saving, and saving in the state of approved triggers an e-mail.
I did tell DLC about this and it’s a core ticket, but I don’t know if/when that’ll get fixed.
Couple of other things…
ADMIN FIELD: INTERNAL NOTES
I could be wrong, but I believe turning this field on is a matter of…turning it on. If that’s the case, definitely shouldn’t cost extra.
In every form creation tool I’ve ever used, not once have I been charged extra for the ability to create conditional fields. That includes Ethos, aka: webform. I understand that perhaps it’s more complex to do it on the application, but it’s also not a matter of choice to collect all the information we collect.
If we’re paying as much as we are, in part for friendly UI, that should include all standard survey/application/form question display formats available.