| 5 | | || MOHC (UK) || Question || Why is component called River Routing when the scheme used throughout would imply it should be called Land Surface River Routing || || |
| 6 | | || MOHC (UK) || Usability || When you have a large number of references - I would expect we will end up with around 160-200. It can be hard to quickly distinguish between references from the same author, and scrolling to find a reference can become a pain. It would be nice if a tooltip could give you the full reference onmouseover and maybe three columns would help with the scrolling || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/assign/reference/component/886/ || |
| 7 | | || MOHC (UK) || Other || "The Land Surface Key Properties component asks in a short text field for information on ""BasicApproximations"" - this either needs some clarifying text or a LOT more real estate. To describe the approximations in our land model would be several pages of text. More information on what you are looking for please" || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/879/edit/ || |
| 8 | | || MOHC (UK) || Unclear || Why can't the key properties be stored under the master component rather than creating a new component. || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/NNNNN/edit/ || |
| 9 | | || MOHC (UK) || Usability || More information on using the questionnaire. I spent 4 hours today adding about 20% of the descriptions (no input on parameters at the moment) - this was just cutting and pasting from our internal database. Generally worked well apart from the Save button - if you move away to set up a new party or add a reference - everything is lost and has to be reentered. In the applications I write I usually use sub_modal windows to capture the ancilliary stuff so that the main window remains populated - probably too much effort now, but we ought to think if there are any other approach we can use to avoid this problem || || |
| 10 | | || MOHC (UK) || Bug || If you add a new component it correctly gets populated with the top level contacts, but not with the top level grid (i.e. when boxes are ticked to auto-populate sub-components) || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/1262/edit/ || |
| 11 | | || MOHC (UK) || Unclear || "Purpose of long name - its a required field and complains if left blank. But we are using a longish text name for the short name (i.e. not a code) - and therefore in MOST cases it could be prepopulated to the short name but allow the user to over write if they want to have an extended name" || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/1262/edit/ || |
| 12 | | || MOHC (UK) || Usability || To provide some reference on the time taken to complete the questionnaire I will add some metrics. In the last day or so I have entered the 114 references used to describe HadGEM2-ES. This took me around 5 hours. Many organisations will already have their references in a digital form - a CSV import option would be a very useful way to reduce the time spent working on the questionnaire. If this is not possible - would it be possible to change the entry process so that I can enter one after another rather than having to go back to the reference list screen, scroll to the bottom and then enter the next one. This gets to be painful once you have a more than a screenful of references in the list. || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/list/reference/ || |
| 13 | | || MOHC (UK) || Other || Some of the references in the MOHC list are nothing to do with our model (and doesn't appear to be generic to CMIP5 project) - I assume its an artifact of setting up the beta test. I can't delete these references as they don't have a (delete) option. || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/list/reference/ || |
| 14 | | || MOHC (UK) || Other || When using the validation option for a model the questionnaire presented a standard internal error page. Would be nice to have a back button to go back to where I was. || || |
| 15 | | || MOHC (UK) || Usability || When entering a party could you default the abbreviation to be the same as the Name field - unless the user specifies something different. || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/list/parties/ || |
| 16 | | || MOHC (UK) || Question || I think I understand the use of the three contacts at the model level - I don't understand what they should be used for at the sub-model level. Should the funder be used for the government department that provides the funding for the model (tricky for us as it is spread across three departments) or the 'owner' of the model (e.g. MOHC). I think we need clear definitions of what the three contacts are to be used for (in tooltips if possible). || http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/843/edit/ || |
| | 5 | ||MOHC (UK)||||"3.2.stc.1850_156yr:None - What does this requirement mean? Is the question meant to be - ""have you run for 156 years?"". I will answer ""not compliant"" to this as we only run for 146 years on our historic."||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/simulation/5/conformance/|| |
| | 6 | ||MOHC (UK)||||Initial conditions are from experiment 3.1.piControl The initial conditions are defined by a dump file from the control run - I don't want to have to list every single variable in the dump file (i.e. all atmosphere variables at all model levels + loads of diagnostic values. Our approach is pretty common. Can we not have an option for a dump file from a parent run. This would then be consistent with the internal netcdf metadata.||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/simulation/5/conformance/|| |
| | 7 | ||MOHC (UK)||Bug||"ran ""Validate"" and got an internal error page"||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/simulation/5/edit/|| |
| | 8 | ||MOHC (UK)||Vocabulary||"I am entering properties for a small number of components. Generally easy to do. On this page I found: - the questions in each group were almost in the reverse order of the previous version (any reason for the change - doesn't particularly matter in this case, just wondered why it changed?) - the multi option tick box solution works well but could do with a little more space between the tick box and the text - the single option drop down might be better just as a simple drop down rather than a radio button - but it works ok - in vegetation types had to resort to ""other"" - we need ""scrub"" as an option - we couldn't understand the ""describe the treatment of vegetation biogeography"" - could we have a better description of what you are looking for."||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/885/edit/|| |
| | 9 | ||MOHC (UK)||Bug||I tried to complete the properties on this page and it gave me an internal error - repeatedly. I tried then to enter properties one section at a time. - bizarrely the questions were asked in different order as I refreshed the page (not good) - it worked one section at a time||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/852/edit/|| |
| | 10 | ||MOHC (UK)||Unclear||"The question AerosolSchemeScope has options of ""yes"" or ""no"" - not sure how to answer that! Question also repeated below"||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/845/edit/|| |
| | 11 | ||MOHC (UK)||Other||Summary: basic approach to completing information is fine. There appears to be some flakiness in the display order of the questions and there is at least one duplicate question. This is really going to need a very thorough review on each page. I don't have the time to complete all of the properties - sorry - and I can only do a data ask from the scientists once, so it has to be stable. I think it will be OK to extend vocabulary options during operations as long as we publicise it.|||| |
| | 12 | ||MOHC (UK)||Usability||"If you tick the box to indicate that ""my model does not include this component"" - it still requires that the long name for the component is completed. If the component is not included can the entry validation checks be skipped (or at least not reported)"||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/861/edit/|| |
| | 13 | ||MOHC (UK)||Vocabulary||"Why do we have a subcomponent to a key properties component (see Atmosphere). This is confusing and has no physical reality. Would be better to combine the properties from the lower level component (Top of Atmosphere Insolation) into key properties component (or in this specific case into Atmosphere Radiation component). This comment should not be used to imply that I support the ""key properties"" component . . as I previously stated I would prefer the properties to be consolidated into the top level component."|||| |
| | 14 | ||MOHC (UK)||Question||Why is component called River Routing when the scheme used throughout would imply it should be called Land Surface River Routing|||| |
| | 15 | ||MOHC (UK)||Usability||When you have a large number of references - I would expect we will end up with around 160-200. It can be hard to quickly distinguish between references from the same author, and scrolling to find a reference can become a pain. It would be nice if a tooltip could give you the full reference onmouseover and maybe three columns would help with the scrolling||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/assign/reference/component/886/|| |
| | 16 | ||MOHC (UK)||Other||"The Land Surface Key Properties component asks in a short text field for information on ""BasicApproximations"" - this either needs some clarifying text or a LOT more real estate. To describe the approximations in our land model would be several pages of text. More information on what you are looking for please"||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/879/edit/|| |
| | 17 | ||MOHC (UK)||Unclear||Why can't the key properties be stored under the master component rather than creating a new component.||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/NNNNN/edit/|| |
| | 18 | ||MOHC (UK)||Usability||More information on using the questionnaire. I spent 4 hours today adding about 20% of the descriptions (no input on parameters at the moment) - this was just cutting and pasting from our internal database. Generally worked well apart from the Save button - if you move away to set up a new party or add a reference - everything is lost and has to be reentered. In the applications I write I usually use sub_modal windows to capture the ancilliary stuff so that the main window remains populated - probably too much effort now, but we ought to think if there are any other approach we can use to avoid this problem|||| |
| | 19 | ||MOHC (UK)||Bug||If you add a new component it correctly gets populated with the top level contacts, but not with the top level grid (i.e. when boxes are ticked to auto-populate sub-components)||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/1262/edit/|| |
| | 20 | ||MOHC (UK)||Unclear||"Purpose of long name - its a required field and complains if left blank. But we are using a longish text name for the short name (i.e. not a code) - and therefore in MOST cases it could be prepopulated to the short name but allow the user to over write if they want to have an extended name"||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/1262/edit/|| |
| | 21 | ||MOHC (UK)||Usability||To provide some reference on the time taken to complete the questionnaire I will add some metrics. In the last day or so I have entered the 114 references used to describe HadGEM2-ES. This took me around 5 hours. Many organisations will already have their references in a digital form - a CSV import option would be a very useful way to reduce the time spent working on the questionnaire. If this is not possible - would it be possible to change the entry process so that I can enter one after another rather than having to go back to the reference list screen, scroll to the bottom and then enter the next one. This gets to be painful once you have a more than a screenful of references in the list.||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/list/reference/|| |
| | 22 | ||MOHC (UK)||Other||Some of the references in the MOHC list are nothing to do with our model (and doesn't appear to be generic to CMIP5 project) - I assume its an artifact of setting up the beta test. I can't delete these references as they don't have a (delete) option.||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/list/reference/|| |
| | 23 | ||MOHC (UK)||Other||When using the validation option for a model the questionnaire presented a standard internal error page. Would be nice to have a back button to go back to where I was.|||| |
| | 24 | ||MOHC (UK)||Usability||When entering a party could you default the abbreviation to be the same as the Name field - unless the user specifies something different.||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/list/parties/|| |
| | 25 | ||MOHC (UK)||Question||I think I understand the use of the three contacts at the model level - I don't understand what they should be used for at the sub-model level. Should the funder be used for the government department that provides the funding for the model (tricky for us as it is spread across three departments) or the 'owner' of the model (e.g. MOHC). I think we need clear definitions of what the three contacts are to be used for (in tooltips if possible).||http://q.cmip5.ceda.ac.uk/cmip5/5/component/843/edit/|| |
