In any contacts database one has two tables: PERSON and ORGANISATION.
An organisation can have one or more people in it. Up until now I have
always included two layouts:

a) Organisation (Organisation Name, address etc)
b) Person (First Name, Last Name, Telephone number etc)

The layouts just follow the database structure. The user can drill
down from the ORGANISATION level to view more details on a specific
PERSON.

I'm now working on a system, where I want to try keep things as simple
as possible. I am hoping to have ONE layout with all the contact
information on it. If a user searches for "FileMaker Inc" or
"Dominique Goupil", they will get taken to a standard layout. This
layout will be based on the PERSON table occurrence. It will also
include all related ORGANISATION information on it. ORGANISATION
fields will have a dark grey background to distinguish them. In
addition there will be a heading above them "Organisation Details."

OK, it's simpler. But do users get confused? The address details
belong to the ORGANISATION table. Will the user make the mistake of
changing the address thinking that it only applies to the PERSON
currently being viewed?

What human errors can I expect to occur with this approach? Am I
opening the door to confusion?

Many thanks
Kevin

hi kevin,

i recently did sort of the same thing, persons and organisations in
the same layout.
however, to keep users form editing the wrong table (it still were two
tables with field occurances on one layout)
i made the organisation adres un editable for the use. however if they
click it it takes them to an other layout (wich looks almost the same)
where the organisation table is hooked up to. (this extra click makes
it a bit more clear there is different information her)

have fun.....

sander





On Feb 11, 9:15 pm, "KevinSmith" <pleasedonotusethisaddr... (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

On Feb 12, 9:28 am, sanderloo... (AT) googlemail (DOT) com wrote:

Thanks for the advice Sander.

It's always reassuring to know someone has succeeded with something
similar.

Regards
Kevin

In article <1171224902.612638.112480 (AT) m58g2000cwm (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
"KevinSmith" <pleasedonotusethisaddress (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

If you want to lessen the chance of "human errors" then you're often
best to make one person responsible for keeping the database up-to-date
and simply lock everyone else out from being able to make changes at
all.


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)