
This document lists the issues raised at the Dec 18,19 APT presentations.


1) People expressed concerns about going to a 
    Phase 1 submission process that had to use 
    downloaded tools in APT.  This also brought 
    up a discussion about making PIs download 
    ETC's to use them.  There was strong interest
    and a suggestion to scope the work to support
    ETC's that would not have to be downloaded with 
    APT in addition to ETC's in APT.
    - The idea of an ETC applet in a browser and in
      APT as an application was suggested
    - The idea of running the ETC at STScI and displaying
      windows back to the client was suggested.
    - Details about issue 1, the ETC issue:
      Can we allow users to run the ETCs without an internet connection?
      Requires distributing synphot. But this runs under IRAF.
      Also synphot throughput files sometimes change. How would this be
      managed? How often do changes occur? (We can determine this from CDBS.)

ACTION TO ESS/APT: APT/ETC team to scope the work and 
determine some approaches to support ETC's in the APT 
toolkit running outside APT accessible over the internet. 
Work to be completed by January 30th.  Tony to work with
ETC group.

2) There was some concern about not sending email responses
   to PI's after they submit their P1/P2 programs.  The Phase 1
   team had proposed posting the submission status to the Phase 1
   web page and PIs would find out if their submission was recieved
   and acceptable via the web.  People felt that it was not as
   friendly, but would work
ACTION:  None just need to make it clear to PIs how it works.

3) Issue came up about using SV2 for duplication checking.  Its
   not the same duplication checking code that the institute 
   put together.  Maybe should hook in the non-SV2 duplication
   code.
ACTION: None at this time.  APT project will work with SV2 team
to determine the proper course of action. 

4) Lots of discussion about platform support (Macs) and Linux support.
ACTION: Dave Soderblum and Stefi felt that a survey is in order.  Not
        just for APT, but for the institute software.  Tony to ask
        Dave if a survey could be start/completed the end of Phase 1
        Cycle 11

5) Related to the Top Level APT GUI. How does apply work?
How can we make clear what changes when? when partial changes have been
made?  when there are inconsistencies?  We should try our hand at writing
down how we think it is going to work and see if what we write down is
intelligible. We need to define exactly what needs to be done to refresh tools,
in order to handle a data change made by another tool.
ACTION: APT Requirements team to define this.

6) Related to the TOP Level APT GUI. How do templates work?
   - should support STScI defined templates
   - should support user-defined templates
   - should be a library that can be sent to another user
   - Templates are likely to be confusing to users. Directed examples
     will help, but not maybe not enough.
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

7) Related to the Top Level APT GUI. Is there a global undo 
   and how does that work?
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

8) Related to APT. Will we allow the XML file to be hand edited?
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

9) Related to APT.  Will we have servers at the Institute 
   for services which can be distributed.
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

10) Need to develop a plan to make APT part of the STScI process
    so that the PCs, ISs use it.  Also need to get external people
    to use it.
    How can we give the next version of the Apt tools enough functionality
    so that people will use it?  (It was VERY hard to get people off of the old
    StarView. What finally worked was turning it off.)
ACTION: APT/STSCI to define this.  Tony will see if Ron Downes would like
        to take the lead on this
   
11) Need to work out a transition plan and make people aware of
    it.  When will ETCs be phased in/out.  When will .prop file
    go away.  When will RPS2 go away.  When will Latex phase 1
    not be supported
    It should be made clear that we have no requirement to support RPS2
    forever.  (I am thinking of adding a non requirements section to the
    requirements document.)
ACTION: APT/STSCI to define this.  Tony will see if Ron Downes would like
        to take the lead on this.

12)  How can you "play" with ideas in a proposal without messing up your
saved/good proposal?
Users may want or expect to see how the results from one tool effect
the results of another, but without making a change to the proposal 
(no Apply). APT does not support this. The only way to propagate 
changes among tools involves the use of Apply. But these changes 
could be be deleted in the proposal or done in a throw-away proposal 
or done through templates (which are outside the proposal). Also 
global undo would help so the changes could be retracted. 
In any case, users will need to understand clearly the limitations.
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.


13) - Minor point: The term "proposal object" can be confusing to observers (confused
with astronomical object). 
ACTION: APT requirements team need to be consistent in language

14) - We need to better define support for editing large proposals in APT.
This will come out of requirements for spreadsheet editors which needs
work. It would be good to get feedback from some users like Harry
Ferguson or Ron Gilliland after this is defined.
ACTION: APT requirements team need to define this
THE ISSUES
==========
1) People expressed concerns about going to a 
    Phase 1 submission process that had to use 
    downloaded tools in APT.  This also brought 
    up a discussion about making PIs download 
    ETC's to use them.  There was strong interest
    and a suggestion to scope the work to support
    ETC's that would not have to be downloaded with 
    APT in addition to ETC's in APT.
    - The idea of an ETC applet in a browser and in
      APT as an application was suggested
    - The idea of running the ETC at STScI and displaying
      windows back to the client was suggested.
    - Details about issue 1, the ETC issue:
      Can we allow users to run the ETCs without an internet connection?
      Requires distributing synphot. But this runs under IRAF.
      Also synphot throughput files sometimes change. How would this be
      managed? How often do changes occur? (We can determine this from CDBS.)

ACTION TO ESS/APT: APT/ETC team to scope the work and 
determine some approaches to support ETC's in the APT 
toolkit running outside APT accessible over the internet. 
Work to be completed by January 30th.  Tony to work with
ETC group.

2) There was some concern about not sending email responses
   to PI's after they submit their P1/P2 programs.  The Phase 1
   team had proposed posting the submission status to the Phase 1
   web page and PIs would find out if their submission was recieved
   and acceptable via the web.  People felt that it was not as
   friendly, but would work
ACTION:  None just need to make it clear to PIs how it works.

3) Issue came up about using SV2 for duplication checking.  Its
   not the same duplication checking code that the institute 
   put together.  Maybe should hook in the non-SV2 duplication
   code.
ACTION: None at this time.  APT project will work with SV2 team
to determine the proper course of action. 

4) Lots of discussion about platform support (Macs) and Linux support.
ACTION: Dave Soderblum and Stefi felt that a survey is in order.  Not
        just for APT, but for the institute software.  Tony to ask
        Dave if a survey could be start/completed the end of Phase 1
        Cycle 11

5) Related to the Top Level APT GUI. How does apply work?
How can we make clear what changes when? when partial changes have been
made?  when there are inconsistencies?  We should try our hand at writing
down how we think it is going to work and see if what we write down is
intelligible. We need to define exactly what needs to be done to refresh tools,
in order to handle a data change made by another tool.
ACTION: APT Requirements team to define this.

6) Related to the TOP Level APT GUI. How do templates work?
   - should support STScI defined templates
   - should support user-defined templates
   - should be a library that can be sent to another user
   - Templates are likely to be confusing to users. Directed examples
     will help, but not maybe not enough.
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

7) Related to the Top Level APT GUI. Is there a global undo 
   and how does that work?
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

8) Related to APT. Will we allow the XML file to be hand edited?
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

9) Related to APT.  Will we have servers at the Institute 
   for services which can be distributed.
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.

10) Need to develop a plan to make APT part of the STScI process
    so that the PCs, ISs use it.  Also need to get external people
    to use it.
    How can we give the next version of the Apt tools enough functionality
    so that people will use it?  (It was VERY hard to get people off of the old
    StarView. What finally worked was turning it off.)
ACTION: APT/STSCI to define this.  Tony will see if Ron Downes would like
        to take the lead on this
   
11) Need to work out a transition plan and make people aware of
    it.  When will ETCs be phased in/out.  When will .prop file
    go away.  When will RPS2 go away.  When will Latex phase 1
    not be supported
    It should be made clear that we have no requirement to support RPS2
    forever.  (I am thinking of adding a non requirements section to the
    requirements document.)
ACTION: APT/STSCI to define this.  Tony will see if Ron Downes would like
        to take the lead on this.

12)  How can you "play" with ideas in a proposal without messing up your
saved/good proposal?
Users may want or expect to see how the results from one tool effect
the results of another, but without making a change to the proposal 
(no Apply). APT does not support this. The only way to propagate 
changes among tools involves the use of Apply. But these changes 
could be be deleted in the proposal or done in a throw-away proposal 
or done through templates (which are outside the proposal). Also 
global undo would help so the changes could be retracted. 
In any case, users will need to understand clearly the limitations.
ACTION: APT requirements team to define this.


13) - Minor point: The term "proposal object" can be confusing to observers (confused
with astronomical object). 
ACTION: APT requirements team need to be consistent in language

14) - We need to better define support for editing large proposals in APT.
This will come out of requirements for spreadsheet editors which needs
work. It would be good to get feedback from some users like Harry
Ferguson or Ron Gilliland after this is defined.
ACTION: APT requirements team need to define this