Change the flow of download and the xls templates

[BibhaT]

Links to the templates:

• Basic Activity Elements Template
• Transaction Template
• Result Template

[BibhaT]

Hi @emmajclegg
I've made some changes in the existing import templates. Please have a look here. Download templates will also be available in the same format to ensure ease of use for the users.

I have created two options for the Result template. I have tried to minimise the number of sheets as users will have to select/enter same set of information repeatedly which also increases the chances of error.

I haven't made any changes in the Instructions sheet yet.

We will have to make slight changes in the download dropdown, this is what I'm thinking:
Download.pdf

Please let me know what you think.

[emmajclegg]

Thank you @BibhaT - I've shared the templates with my team to collate feedback (and will likely get comments back to you early next week)

On the download dropdown design:

• from a support perspective, we see users using the .xls (I think they're actually .xlsx ?) templates much more than the other file formats, so I think .xlsx can be put at the top of the download list. I imagine it's only us in IATI Support downloading the XML files
• To make language clearer, I suggest using the wording "Download XLSX (Excel) file", "Download CSV file", "Download XML file" - the file formats on their own may be unclear to non-technical users
• There should probably still be the option to download all of the .xlsx files together when needed (i.e. an extra "All data" option?). I'm not sure how best to present that so your thoughts welcome!

[BibhaT]

Thanks for the feedback @emmajclegg . @asminashrestha will incorporate them into the design and get back to you by EOD tomorrow. We'll wait for feedback on the templates.

[emmajclegg]

Thanks - on the templates, we have a few questions / concerns:

Questions:

• @BibhaT - is there evidence from AidStream which template format is used more by users - .csv or .xlsx ? We're struggling to know which is more intuitive without user research (which can be done but will delay things).
• How are codelists and colour coding kept up to date in the current IATI Publisher & AidStream templates? (it's a lot of work to maintain and keep in sync if done manually)

Comments:

• Activity template: Core elements like title, description, dates, status etc. could be on one sheet to reduce the number of sheets. The AidStream basic elements template looks much simpler and focuses on the important elements.

• Transactions upload: we think Aidstream does this well by just having a flat file (csv) import. Unless there's evidence from my question above to suggest otherwise, we suspect csv will be easiest for people to output from their financial systems. I don't understand the need for the "Settings" sheet in the transactions template either way (confusing as these are default values at the activity level)

• Results: the templates shared above have a lot of sheets compared to the AidStream template. I don't know how AidStream does it but 5 document-link sheets is unnecessary (I can't imagine any user needing this). One document-link sheet would be sufficient

• the "Options" sheet across all templates is better titled "Codelists".

Happy to answer questions or discuss. I think we either need to draw on the Aidstream templates a lot more or switch the focus to csv templates, as guiding users through (and maintaining) templates with all elements of the Standard in will be incredibly complex.

[BibhaT]

Hi @emmajclegg , I have addressed your questions and comments here:

is there evidence from AidStream which template format is used more by users - .csv or .xlsx ? We're struggling to know which is more intuitive without user research (which can be done but will delay things).

• Majority of the users on AidStream use CSV template since XLSX template was under AidStream PRO. Having said that, XLSX template would be more intuitive as the elements have been separated and grouped which cannot be done in the CSV template.

How are codelists and colour coding kept up to date in the current IATI Publisher & AidStream templates? (it's a lot of work to maintain and keep in sync if done manually)

• Codelists on AidStream templates gets updated manually, I believe its the same for IATI Publisher. Colour coding does not need much changes unless the element's characteristics (mandatory, non-mandatory) gets changed. Depending on which codelist gets updated, it might take a few minutes up to a few hours to make the updates.

Comments:

Activity template: Core elements like title, description, dates, status etc. could be on one sheet to reduce the number of sheets. The AidStream basic elements template looks much simpler and focuses on the important elements.

• We could group the elements according to the grouping in the system (core elements and others) so that the users get an idea of the basic information they need to publish in order for data users to make sense of their data. I think we need to focus on the number of columns in one sheet as opposed to the number of sheets because if there are many columns where data needs to be filled in one sheet, that would be more confusing to the user.

Transactions upload: we think Aidstream does this well by just having a flat file (csv) import. Unless there's evidence from my question above to suggest otherwise, we suspect csv will be easiest for people to output from their financial systems. I don't understand the need for the "Settings" sheet in the transactions template either way (confusing as these are default values at the activity level)

• I think the Transaction template addresses your concern here. Yes, we can remove the Settings sheet, it would just confuse the user. I'll do it right away.

Results: the templates shared above have a lot of sheets compared to the AidStream template. I don't know how AidStream does it but 5 document-link sheets is unnecessary (I can't imagine any user needing this). One document-link sheet would be sufficient

• In AidStream document link is available only for Result. There are document link in multiple levels in the Publisher because during the initial development it was agreed that all the elements, sub-elements, fields would be included. But we can remove the document link since it does not get used either.

the "Options" sheet across all templates is better titled "Codelists".

• I'll make the changes in the templates.

[BibhaT]

I also think we should make some changes in the Instructions sheets to make it a bit more simpler.

[emmajclegg]

Hi @BibhaT - thanks for the comments. Can you pause work on this until I've had a chance to look more at the Excel templates on Monday. We can then discuss next steps on the Tuesday call.

I worry we're trying to represent the whole IATI Standard in these templates, which is not appropriate for the IATI Publisher-Aidstream user base (who will only ever use a fraction of fields). I agree with you that core elements need to be the focus and that the instructions could be vastly simplified.

[emmajclegg]

To summarise comments on the Excel data import templates this morning,

• we will focus initially on simplified import and export templates (that include only a subset of the IATI Standard) to meet the needs of most users. We can look into more advanced templates at a later point, potentially to suit different groups of users, based on user research.

Please can we use the existing AidStream basic elements template as the model for the basic activity template. This is because:

• the instructions ("info sheet") is already very clear
• the sheet "basic activity information" contains essentials like title, description and status on the same sheet
• the approach of marking mandatory elements with asterisks is preferable to the colour-coding approach currently in the IATI Publisher templates (due to accessibility)
• the language used for data field headers is more understandable to users than the more technical IATI Standard terms used elsewhere

Suggested actions to adapt the AidStream template to IATI Publisher:

1. make sure all IATI Publisher core activity elements are included in this template
2. adapt or remove the colour coding of sheets (I'm not sure how this works in the Aidstream template, but the most important thing for IATI Publisher will be clearly distinguishing between core and any optional elements we choose to include)
3. we can consider including a few optional (i.e. non-core) areas of the Standard but only if we are certain they are well used (e.g. you mentioned policy markers @BibhaT)

The same comments as above will apply to transactions and results data templates (in terms of the current Aidstream templates having better instructions, labelling and language). Using a similar format to the Aidstream templates will also help users that are used to these to transition to IATI Publisher.

Any questions, please let me know.

[BibhaT]

Hi @emmajclegg : I have made some changes in the AidStream template according to your suggestions. Have a look here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KX4n_0kJkV9fdRoKX8YvhYydFXwnLZ49bAe-2qeZlGw/edit?usp=drive_link

For now I have only included the core elements, for the non-core elements I think we should include the elements mandated by the Dutch MoFA because majority of the publishers I have seen to date use those elements or less.

Changes made:

• Dissolved the 'basic activity information' sheet as that grouping is specific to AidStream and not mentioned anywhere in the Standard, do let me know if we want to include that anyway
• Changed the order of the elements according what's in the Standard
• Colour coding has been done according to the Publisher's design system (brand colours)
• Relevant changes in instructions sheet
• Have added IATI Standard's links on the respective elements' sheet for easy user access (assuming they're using Excel and not Google Sheets it would be a hassle for them to open their browser, go to the Standard's website, search for the relevant element)

I'll make the changes in Result and Transactions templates tomorrow let you know.
Thanks!

[emmajclegg]

Thank you @BibhaT - this is looking so much better.

for the non-core elements I think we should include the elements mandated by the Dutch MoFA because majority of the publishers I have seen to date use those elements or less.

Yes I completely agree that the above makes sense for non-core elements.

Other comments:

• Mandatory asterisks: To check, one asterisk marks mandatory elements for the IATI Standard, two asterisks is for mandatory fields within elements. What do the three asterisks mean on the "participating organisations" sheet? We want to watch that the labelling doesn't get too complicated
  

• Colour coding of sheets and headers - i'm not sure how much colouring different elements adds benefit to be honest. I think it would be simpler, and cleaner, to colour core element sheets one colour and non-core elements another. What do you think?

• Info sheet: I don't think I can unlock this at the moment, but can I make some edits? Nothing dramatic, but to make some of the language more concise. I think all the necessary information is there

[BibhaT]

@emmajclegg : I have made the changes according to your feedback.

• Mandatory asterisks: To check, one asterisk marks mandatory elements for the IATI Standard, two asterisks is for mandatory fields within elements. What do the three asterisks mean on the "participating organisations" sheet? We want to watch that the labelling doesn't get too complicated

Those are extra marks that must have been typed in mistakenly, I have removed them.

• Colour coding of sheets and headers - i'm not sure how much colouring different elements adds benefit to be honest. I think it would be simpler, and cleaner, to colour core element sheets one colour and non-core elements another. What do you think?

Yes, makes sense. I was thinking of another option where this colour coding made sense, but I forgot to change the coding afterwards. I have assigned two colours now, one for core elements and another for non-core elements.

• Info sheet: I don't think I can unlock this at the moment, but can I make some edits? Nothing dramatic, but to make some of the language more concise. I think all the necessary information is there

I have updated the access, you should be able to make the changes now.

[BibhaT]

@emmajclegg I have made the required changes in the Transaction template as well: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U5HIIYr_vkO27EoM2OujAeaxombz9yyt/edit?gid=1532389674#gid=1532389674

I won't be able to finish the result template today because of time constraints, I should be able to get it done first thing on Monday.

[emmajclegg]

Thanks @BibhaT - I've started looking at the Basic Activity Template and will continue on Monday (+ look at the Transactions one)

Unless there's a reason for the current order of sheets in the activity template, I suggest we group all "core" ones together upfront, as this is what IATI Publisher "expects" users to complete. I need to think some more about how to explain the concept of core vs. mandatory elements clearly on the instructions sheet.

[BibhaT]

@emmajclegg

Unless there's a reason for the current order of sheets in the activity template, I suggest we group all "core" ones together upfront, as this is what IATI Publisher "expects" users to complete. I need to think some more about how to explain the concept of core vs. mandatory elements clearly on the instructions sheet.

The order of the elements were placed according to the order in IATI Standard. I have grouped the core and non-core elements together.
Note: Should some sort of instruction be included for recipient country or recipient region since users can use either or both? Since both the elements have been listed under core elements, there are chances of users getting confused.

Result template is ready too, have a look here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qmc7_jP5SEidccdU55wVbCqfb9Z2WetA/edit?gid=976507206#gid=976507206

[emmajclegg]

Thanks @BibhaT. I'm generally happy with the Basic Activity template now - have a look over the instructions page (I've simplified the language as best I can and added an instruction line on recipient country/region as you suggested). I've also tagged you in a couple of questions.

One thing to check:

• I'm a bit confused by the use of single and double mandatory asterisks on the same sheet:
  

An activity must have a description according to the IATI Standard, and the only mandatory data field within that is narrative. I suggest we keep the templates as simple as possible by using single asterisks on sheets that are mandatory according to the Standard, and double asterisks on sheets that aren't. I don't expect the user to be able to distinguish between attributes and sub-elements.

Relatedly - on the Document Link sheet, both Document Language and Document Date are optional, yet have asterisks. I'm happy to do a final check of asterisks if needed.

---

Transaction template - I've had a look at this and all generally looks good. I marked one row in the Instructions sheet for deletion ("In case of multiple data...") as I don't believe any transaction fields accept multiple entries.

---

Results template - I haven't had time to look at this but will tomorrow.

[BibhaT]

Thanks @emmajclegg , I have addressed your comments and feedback on the sheet.

• I'm a bit confused by the use of single and double mandatory asterisks on the same sheet:

Single asterisks are for mandatory elements (which has been mentioned as "must occur at least once" in the Standard), and double asterisks are for fields that are mandatory if their main element is being reported.

An activity must have a description according to the IATI Standard, and the only mandatory data field within that is narrative. I suggest we keep the templates as simple as possible by using single asterisks on sheets that are mandatory according to the Standard, and double asterisks on sheets that aren't. I don't expect the user to be able to distinguish between attributes and sub-elements.

Just so that we're on the same page, we'll use single asterisks for the core elements and double for non-core elements?

Relatedly - on the Document Link sheet, both Document Language and Document Date are optional, yet have asterisks. I'm happy to do a final check of asterisks if needed.

Double asterisks on document link element because it's not a mandatory element. A round of check for the asterisks would be much appreciated, thanks!

Transaction template - I've had a look at this and all generally looks good. I marked one row in the Instructions sheet for deletion ("In case of multiple data...") as I don't believe any transaction fields accept multiple entries.

Yes, that particular instruction was not needed, I have removed it.

[emmajclegg]

Thanks @BibhaT

Just so that we're on the same page, we'll use single asterisks for the core elements and double for non-core elements?

I've gone through the three templates and checked the asterisks. I've used single asterisks on sheets that are mandatory according to the IATI Standard (i.e. the user will publish data with critical errors without these populated), and double asterisks otherwise.

Most of the core element sheets have single asterisks yes, apart from recipient country, recipient region, sector and budget, which are all technically optional according to the Standard or could be specified in transactions instead. This is as simple as I can think to make it for the user.

I've adjusted the results template instructions sheet to be more consistent with the other templates' instructions.

Any questions, let me know.

[emmajclegg]

Do you have the feedback you need on the import templates @BibhaT ?

I had one question here on the format of activity identifiers, to make sure it's clear in the instructions sheet, but otherwise think that these templates are in a good enough state to more forward with.

[BibhaT]

Thanks @emmajclegg , I have everything I need for now. We'll prioritise issue #1553 now and plan for this issue accordingly.