Skip to content

Jim Garrison

My feedback

17 results found

  1. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Developers » API  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Developers » API  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  3. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Developers » API  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  4. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Wishlist » API  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Jim Garrison commented  · 

    I've just realized that there is a quick workaround for this that I actually found years ago and forgot about :-(

    All we have to do is use time-span overlap-finding trick, using the overall event's start and end dates, assuming that the event's dates encompass all session dates.

    Given a filter range of dates X..Y, write the filter as

    EndDate ge X and StartDate le Y

    This returns all events that overlap the filter range, greatly reducing the size of the result set. Then all you have to do is select only the zero or more sessions that are within the filter range.

    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  5. 14 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Wishlist » Events  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison supported this idea  · 
  6. 209 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    81 comments  ·  Wishlist » Events  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Jim Garrison commented  · 

    We have a use case where it is necessary, for certain events and ticket types, for the list of registrants to be always visible to one or more people who are designated as event leaders. This is defeated by the option presented to members at registration time to remain anonymous.

    There would be two ways of doing this:

    1) For every event, the option to designate one or more members as "Event Leader", with the ability to view the registrant list regardless of a registrant's choice to remain anonymous. Currently WA provides no mechanism to designate an Event Leader.

    2) Provide an option on an event's ticket type to prevent anonymous registration.

    Option (1) would be more general and useful, but would probably require a lot more work as it's a significant database schema change. Option (2) seems it would be easier to accomplish.

  7. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Jim Garrison commented  · 

    Thanks @WNCFHG, as you noted, TOTP is "Time-based One Time Password". In this protocol, there is a shared secret, generated by the website, but each time it is requested it is combined with the current time of day (rounded to 30 seconds) and hashed. The resulting random code is the only thing transmitted, so the secret never goes over the wire except when it is set up initally. This is also known as "Authenticator based" because an app on your device (or password manager), the Authenticator, generates the code on request.

    2FA stands for "2-Factor Authentication", where two forms of identification, password and one-time-code, are required.

    I assume everyone knows what SMS is (text message) and SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) which is what links your phone number and account to your mobile phone.

    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  8. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Wishlist » Usability  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison supported this idea  · 
  9. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison supported this idea  · 
  10. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Wishlist » Events  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  11. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Wishlist » Events  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  12. 8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Wishlist » Contacts  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison supported this idea  · 
  13. 13 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Jim Garrison commented  · 

    The ability to delete orders as a matter of course is a bad idea in any system where auditability and traceability are important. If there is a true need for this it should be a method of last resort, and require super-admin rights.

  14. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Developers  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison shared this idea  · 
  15. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Jim Garrison commented  · 

    The Captcha used in various places needs options to disable the image verification and just use the "I'm not a robot" click. The image verification is inane and very frustrating as it's often not clear if a tile contains a piece of what they're looking for. ESPECIALLY for logged in members. There's no need to impose image verification for logged in users, such as in the store checkout page.

  16. 56 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    30 comments  ·  Wishlist » Members  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison supported this idea  · 
  17. 146 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    74 comments  ·  Wishlist » Members  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Jim Garrison supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base