This is propably the most stupid question I've ever made. But I still ask it... :

Is it possible to change fields in one layout via script during data input ? I mean, if I type "Cat" in first field, the following fields are changes automatically to fields that are needed to fill up when there is a cat in the first one. "Dog" would end up to different field setup. With Script Triggers it is possible to switch to another layout, but it doesn't work in IWP.

I propably know the answer, but still... :

following fields are changes automatically

Do you mean the labels, but the fields the data arrives in could be the same global field, and when the record is committed ...put elsewhere - sort of scratchpad.

Now IWP is much more modal in the behaviour, in an attempt to cut the chatting in the network. I would think that such matter should be a java script runned in to webviewer ... since it doesn't require any handshaking backwards.

I think http://jquery.com/ is the name of the game here??

--sd

Well, I mean, that really the fields in Layout would change according the input.

JavaScript would be nice, but I only speak FM Script Language... :

I use now conditional value lists, but in our company there is a huge number of different reporting styles according what you are reporting and from where. My dream is to create "a universal" reporting sheet, which would then adapt according to the needs. Now I'm forced to create always a new layout, when a new site is added. This seems to be an endless job... :

English is not my first language - not even second. That's why it is a little bit tricky to explain the problem fully. Sorry... :

But in our company there is about 200 positions where reports are done. In position A is required certain information when reporting, in pos B another etc. Most of them use same fields, but in many cases different reporting style is needed. I wouldn't want to confuse users with one layout containing ALL the fields - most of them useless for them. In the end there should be same "summary" from each position that can be used in HQ.

I cannot send an example file, because the solution is quite huge already now.

You might also want to consider filtered portal (if you are using different fields for both dogs and cats) or even visibility

Excellent idea if it weren't for the missing refreshing in IWP!

--sd

My dream is to create "a universal" reporting sheet, which would then adapt according to the needs.

As well as event triggers doesn't work under IWP - wouldn't any expectations to be able to make subsummary reports be a far fetch since previewmode doesn't exist in IWP. So any attempt would be i the vicinty of:

http://www.kevinfrank.com/download/kf-fast-summary.zip

...any ways.

--sd

Fortunately there is FM Clients in use in the HQ, which need those summaries. Only the workers in the field use IWP.

Then would LaRettas idea perhaps work as well. One record for each field. If you enter Cat, will a calc'field change to a pilcrow delimited list of the ID's of the relevant fields ... The portal will be cut up and the fields will be splayed over the layout. But there could even in native browsemode be refreshing issues ... I'm afraid, since it's a primary key we would try to modify, but perhaps something in Ugo's method will make it work?

--sd

Yes, that could work. But - if I understood correctly - there would still be a number of fields in one layout, each showing data from different records across the database. The labels would change when entering data.

But the problems:

- IWP -users would need "Refresh" after adding data to the first field to get "correct" labels.

- Some of the positions (or "sites") fill up only a few fields. In some places a dozen fields are expected. Those empty fields are confusing if they are not needed.

EDIT// And it still wouldn't stop needing to add new "rules" ie. script steps how to change field labels and deliver data to correct fields when a new site is added.

Edited August 21, 200916 yr by Guest

Ok... I try to be more clear...

We have about 200 sites where people are working (in medical branch). They are expected to fill up information for accounting after the working day. In the end of each month (or week) the HQ then prints the invoices and sends them to each site. But... In site A only the working hours are needed (like 1.June - 8 hours, 2. June - 7,5 hours etc.), but Site B requires the number of patients treated. Site C needs detailed invoice including the operations etc.

Now, when worker in Site A enters the "reporting" layout he doesn't need to fill up any detailed information about oprations etc. Only the hours. But Worker in Site C have to fill them also.

So, it would be nice to have a dynamic layout which adapts to the needs.

So, it would be nice to have a dynamic layout which adapts to the needs.

It's not uncommon to have different layouts tied to each of the privileges sets. Similar could different departments have each thier own interface utilizing the separation model. It is as if the hosting services are aware of this little easy earner?

Can't you use different layouts to whom might be using it instead of the desired type-along'ish behaviour which can't be done with out heavy reliance on java scripting?

I would suggest you study the separation model, to provide the localization required. This is a way to keep the reporting in just one file.

--sd

That's true. I just had a dream where I never have to set up a new layout (and some new calc fields + script steps) when a new working site is added to our company. But I'll continue like this.

Thanks anyway to everybody !

I'm rather surprised Søren didn't suggest you examine this approach:

http://www.filemakermagazine.com/videos/data-tagging-classification-vs-organization.html

I have correspondance with Arttu running outside this forum and think I already have brought it up...

--sd

Uh oh... Please remember, that I'm only merely a beginner with FileMaker. So maybe I don't understand all the complicated solutions, you Gurus show me... :

But thank you for this video and other possible solutions. Now I have to do a little brainwork with this.