definitely don't like the sound of option 1, so I am pleased that is not the preferred route

I am unclear whether method 2 will produce (working with your hypothetical example) either :-

a) pages 4, 5 6 with 1 or 2 transactions on each (ie original pagination maintained, just quantities of transactions cut down) or

b) all unexplained items on one page (If they fit)

I think b) sounds much better and hope that is what you are producing

Yes Martin, option b) is what we did.

Good to see this does not only seem reasonable for us - we have discussed this quite a bit.

But I can also see some scenarios where this behaviour will be an issue. After all, pages serve as cluster that make the work more manageable, and when pagination changes, users may lose 'orientation' - "I was just on page 3 out of 6, so why am I now on page 1 out of 3?".

The whole concept of pagination is really problematic - If there are 4 pages, and you can choose individual transactions for some bulk operation, should a 'select all' feature select all transactions on the current page (which is what the user actually sees) or all transactions on all page (which is sometimes the intention). This is just one of may issues with pagination, there are many many more!

So I hope, like you, the current behaviour is seen is optimal, albeit not perfect for all cases.

I suspect you can devise circumstances to benefit from any specific option. Your task is to work out which is the most common. For my Firm, I think this choice is typically the best option, but others may more regularly have different circumstances.
Can't please all of the people all of the time ! I assume is it a whole new level of complexity to allow users to switch ?

We sweat blood here trying to find a better solution. Good news is that we haven't completed the user observations / task modelling stages, so there's still a wealth of research data to feed this.

Your method seems ok to me, if people do not like it then they can simply uncheck hide explained? Not sure if this has gone live yet, just tried but hide explained was not checked?

Perhaps rather than have pagination it can be upgraded to use AJAX, so the unexplained automatically show more when needed and those explained just drop off the list? - idea for later :)

Just tested and this is loads better than before, although it still does not scroll back to the unexplained list properly after I've reconciled an item (I clicked add transaction). Using chrome (40.0.2214.91 (64-bit)) and macbook pro (Yosemite 10.10.1).

I never even noticed the hide explained checkbox before!

Oh small bug. After I had finished reconciling 4 items, clicked hide explained and now everything is gone, the hide explained button should stay as now I cannot view anything?

I like this. A lot. Thanks.

Now if we could just fix Yodleee so that we can actually use this then everything would be perfect......

Example below. Perhaps when all is reconciled it should default to showing everything and I should not be able to hide explained.

James,

Perhaps rather than have pagination it can be upgraded to use AJAX, so the unexplained automatically show more when needed and those explained just drop off the list? - idea for later :)

The new design is AJAX based, yet we have the same problem - some people import 300 transactions per day. Initial performance tests we've done definitely show a noticeable rendering delay (on the client side - excluding server response) with 1000 transactions - so we'll have to cluster the view one way or another. Progressive loading would help here, but we're still have some concerns with views that have 1000+ records, performance wise.

Just tested and this is loads better than before, although it still does not scroll back to the unexplained list properly after I've reconciled an item (I clicked add transaction).

Yes, we are aware of this and it's being worked on as we speak.

Oh small bug. After I had finished reconciling 4 items, clicked hide explained and now everything is gone, the hide explained button should stay as now I cannot view anything?

That's indeed a bug, added to this week's plan.

Could of greyed out the page numbers to fix this "The issue with this is that if out of 6 page statement all but one transaction is explained, you'll end up with 5 blank pages."

Also, I think once everything is explained you should show them or it serves no purpose really, say I want to come back and check something i have to first click hide explained to show them, then after that I would want to click it again. It would make it better if you hide the hide explained checkbox and return to the default view when everything is explained, for me anyway.

It would be nice to export the remaining unexplained items into excel so that the list can be sent back to the client for further explanation....

Definitely agree with that Jon. See point 11 on my list here https://secure.clearbooks.co.uk/community/ideas/8480/a-few-steps-to-improve-the-bank-import-reconciliation-process. If no specific area, an export is really a must (copy/pasting/re-formatting very tedious)

@James - that also makes sense, possibly something like an option to only dim explained, which will also dim pages that are only made of explained transactions. So will definitely be considered as part of the current design work.

@Jon - yes, this has been requested a few times before and we're looking into a solution.

Hi all - the biggest benefit of the Cloud stuff is collaboration and so mine tend to work the other way, ie the clients do 95% and then ask me about the one or two they are not sure of.

Being able to view and work on live data, in one place, is great and I try to avoid exporting or printing, as it tends to create duplication. So, for me, as in other systems, having a note facility against each items would get my vote, where I, or the client, could give some info or a question.

The ability to add notes per transaction to clients is something we definitely want to add as a feature.

But this is based on an assumption that accountants give their clients access to the system (which I assume is a correct assumption).

Also, there seems to be a need here to 'bulk comment' - if there are 20 transactions that need client attention, ideally the accountant doesn't have to go one by one and comment on each. Am I correct?

@James, the bug you have reported about the 'Hide Explained' disappearing has been fixed.