MINUTES, REVIEW USERS GROUP
3/12/01

Sherry Zucker brought the meeting to order shortly after 1:00. Members of the Users Group introduced themselves.

Zucker explained that the meeting would include three components - a demonstration of how to use the Review Module to assemble and release summary statements, a discussion of the plan for phased deployment of that functionality, and a plea for additional testers.

1. DEMONSTRATION

Daniel Fox of Logicon led the demonstration. A handout was provided, so these minutes will focus on key points of information and on questions which were raised.

The system treats the assembly of summary statements as bringing together three parts - the top, the text of the review (the "body"), and the roster (plus footer and other NIH-wide notes).

The Import Text button serves to bring the body from a file on the user's PC (or LAN) into storage in IMPAC II. The body is then merged with the top and the roster to create a "Draft" Summary Statement. Thus, the "Import" function is equivalent to an "Upload" in IMPAC I. When printed, this "Draft" summary is equivalent to an "Advance Copy." The program requires that files be named with the application number (less the Type code); a six digit number is required (i.e., there needs to be a leading 0: r01hl012345-01). The naming is NOT case sensitive.

In response to a subsequent question, an icon for "Favorites" cannot be added to the Import Text window; however, it is anticipated that user preferences can be added to facilitate selecting the folder in which the user has stored reviews. The default is Oratemp, which could also be used.

Users need to be aware that the Refresh or Refresh Scrn buttons need to be used to check on the status of a job if the user has stayed on the same screen.

When viewing a summary, a Netscape or an Explorer window will open, with Acrobat opening within that program. The lowermost (Acrobat) toolbar needs to be used for operations such as printing; otherwise, the printed copy may include pages of symbols instead of the intended text, or other problems may arise.

Revision of summaries is best done by altering the Word or WordPerfect document and repeating the Import Text step.

When the Rel Final SS button is pushed, the system checks for a roster, a meeting release, and the presence of the body. If any component is missing, the verification window will not include the deficient summary. The Rel Final will be the equivalent of a Print Req when the system is fully functional.

The system is designed to handle approximately 250 30 page summaries per hour, which should be at least equivalent to the capacity of IMPAC I, according to comments from the group. Should 1000 summaries be submitted virtually simultaneously, the last summary in the queue could take around 4 hours to complete.

Zucker indicated that the program staff screen which will allow program to monitor summary statement status has not yet been developed. Along these lines, though, it was suggested that, when an SRA changes the status to "under revision" and then to "draft," that at least the program staff screen continue to show "under revision" so as to more accurately inform program of what is happening.

It was pointed out that there is a "Release Roster" button in the module which will allow review staff to perform this function without having to go to CM to do it.

As a point of information, all IMPAC II summaries will contain the roster as part of the image. Thus, printed Council books would contain many additional pages.

Should there be a change to the top information, review staff would need to revise, then re-release the summary.

Four flags (Admin Note, Biohazard, Budget Comments, and Foreign) can be checked and will trigger printing of these notes just above the body. Check marks in these fields clear as the user navigates to another application.

It was noted that printed margins are larger than those set in the original body text. There was some discussion of exploring this problem with an eye to recommending that users set their margins wider (e.g., to 0.75) so as to compensate for this problem.

There was discussion among the participants about page breaks. According to the developers, the number of lines needed for top information is variable and will be impacted by NIH wide notes. Thus, it is currently impossible to advise users as to how many lines of body text might appear on the first page. There seemed to be enthusiasm from the group to relegate the entire first page to top information and notes so that the body can start at the top of page two, allowing users complete control of page breaks.

For the information of new testers, certain bugs have already been identified and need not be reported to the help desk; some will be fixed before new testers are brought on board. Identified bugs include:

1. Wide margins (see above)
2. The Print window comes in too low to see the OK button
3. The PI degree(s) do not print
4. The PCC degree(s) do not print
5. Meeting dates are missing
6. Some fonts may not work in WordPerfect (Note that Arial 10 MAY be the recommended uniform font across NIH)
7. Missing SRG date and missing SRG full name for some but not all
8. Too large font at top on some has been reported but developers may want to see more instances
9. Code 5A and clinical trial message appearing on renewals with code 10 HS has been reported
10. Need for clearer demarcation between text and footnotes
11. Lack of a secure link on browser
12. Running header not within margin
13. Word "privileged" not centered - this is not a problem because its only true on draft version - when word "draft" is remove this centers okay
14. Quick import of 2 summaries causes both to fail - fix is being put in place

The plan is to include these bugs in the message board on entry into the system

In regard to formatting reviews, Dr. Coelho noted that RPC is developing a template for summary statements so as to allow efficient searching for a variety of purposes.

In discussion later in the meeting, it was acknowledged that there may be some danger of finalized (IMPAC I Print Req'd) summaries being overwritten by summaries "released" by IMPAC II testers. The developers will look into plugging this gap, as well as a "back door" entry to the system identified by another one of the group members.

2. DEPLOYMENT SCHEDULE

Again, a handout was provided, so these notes will only cover highlights and questions.

The schedule calls for four phases, with the first (so far involving Review JAD members only) already under way. This is purely a test phase with limited benefits to the testers (they can print out a Draft to proof the text, but the formatting and pagination will NOT mirror the IMPAC I Advance).

The developers anticipate moving to Phase 2 at the end of the month. While the IMPAC I version (still plain vanilla text only) will still be the summary of record, it WILL be possible to trigger the Print Req by pressing Rel Final SS in IMPAC II. The official "Upload" process will still be by the conventional route in IMPAC I.

The programming for Phase 3 has largely been completed, but moving to this phase must be delayed (likely until June 15) while the ICs upgrade their satellite systems. In this phase, summaries can be taken to completion through either IMPAC I or IMPAC II. If the latter is used, special characters will be allowed. All summaries will be stored in IMPAC II as PDF images when this phase commences.

Phase 4 (November) will result in the termination of IMPAC I summaries.

3. PLEA FOR TESTERS

The meeting ended with a plea for members of the group to volunteer to help test the system. The developers noted that, with more users, more bugs will likely be identified. Since the goal is to have a system that performs as close to flawlessly as possible on final release to the community, it is important that as many bugs as possible be identified. Testers do not need to feel constrained to use the system for all, or even a large fraction, of their summaries, but periodic tests (a few per week to a couple per day) should help to stress test the system and identify problems. In addition to problems, though, the developers would also appreciate hearing about successful tests, since those in charge of the overall IMPAC II effort need to hear about these as well.

If you are interested in being a tester, you should contact Scarlett Gibb. She can also help with training, as can former Review JAD members (Panniers, Sinnett, and Bobbie and Tracy David CSR; Sesma, NIGMS; Windle, NINDS; Preble-Bartlett, NCI; and Anne Clark, NHLBI).

Comments, pro and con, should be directed to Helpdesk IMPAC II (from Global).

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00

A special thanks to Dr. Ev Sinnett for the preparation of these minutes

Attachments

No attachments.