Be able to hide app features that are not used anymore

I get your point, but already Manager “conceals” other functional items that are part of transactions.
I already have many inventory items sold, that are now deactivated.

The point of deactivation is exactly no to get them in your way when you are searching for other items. Didn’t said to delete them.

Concealing them wouldn’t affect any transaction made with them, and serve the same point “deactivations” serve for all other items that can be deactivated.

And for the end, bad or not, this is still an idea.

But when you look at your Inventory Items tab, the items are still listed and visible. They are just moved to the bottom of the list. They are not concealed.

Yes, but the developer has previously expressed his opposition to such complications of the navigation pane. That also influences my decision not to put this into the ideas category. We cannot be constantly putting things in and taking them out, only to put them back in because someone else has the same thought later.

They are concealed from the auto-search function when I am searching in the invoice.

You’ve just said another great proposition, move them to the bottom of the tabs. Totally accepted by me. Move them to the bottom, of the tabs list and grey them like deactivated items. But better will be to also compress them all in one tab like @Ealfardan proposed.

Eitherway I 'll be able to navigate much faster.

Another solution will be to make a user with no rights to those tabs, but that will not be possible for the desktop edition.

This comparison is a false equivalence. You do not and cannot use the Search function to search for a functional tab.

Yes but if they couldn’t be deactivated when I was searching for an item, instead of having to pick between 3, I would have to pick between 33, making the whole process difficult. That’s why deactivation exists anyway.

Nevertheless, moving unwanted tabs at the bottom and grey them out, like you said, will work, it’s easy to be done, and painless to everyone that doesn’t need it.

The comparison maybe is not equivalent but the idea IS equivalent and can be put up like this:

Be able to hide, what you don’t use anymore

and as long I can understand: 1) Consists of an Idea and 2) Is combatable with how Manager works, and its philosophy.

That is the point. It is not compatible with the philosophy the developer has expressed.

Can we hear @lubos opinion in this discussion?

This feature seems to be required by more than one person and with no response from the supervisors.

That is your interpretation is not related to anything I wrote, maybe you can point it out where I made such statement?

Because none was offered, the statement was an open ended one, ie “This opinion could include pointing out that it is of lesser priority than other ideas.” does not require the posting of any other idea as it is hypothetical, i.e. it “could”.

I am not aware of any so called “supervisors” on this forum, we have moderators. @Tut is one of the few moderators and serves also as kind of filter for deciding if something becomes an idea or not. People like him are trusted by the developer to filter posts in the forum.

I’m pretty sure Lubos reads almost all posts in this forum, being his baby, and if he is keen on an idea, he himself will put it in ideas category and override moderators.
If however it doesn’t make it to ideas or there is no comment from him then that would indicate he is in fact not so keen. Don’t think long discussions will change that.


Whatever, I still believe it a relevant feature, in accordance with the philosophy of the program. I still believe that the devs should do the judge.

Btw, do you have any forum post that backs your point? My own point is backed up from the existence of “disabled” in the program.

You’re right it does’t relate to anything you wrote, because it is describing what Patch said. Then you defended his freedom of speech, and I said that he is only complaining and didn’t showed that he understood my point.

Even if he did, being negative about an Idea someone has, and promoting your needs is considered by me as a topic hijacking.

Again, I was talking about Patch’s claims about missing core functionality. I asked him if he can provide a link, and obviously he didn’t.

Please read more carefully, unless I did something wrong with my writing… :slight_smile: no hard feelings here.

Me neither, but the man is in vacation (as I know of) and 19 hours to log (probably he logs only for emergencies), so he hasn’t seen this. The ultimate truth is that if an idea fits into his vision, it will make i the app.

Here is one: Manager Navigation Feedback. See the developer’s responses. There are others you should be able to find yourself.

1 Like

Thanks for the link.

I read @lubos replies and some of the points made there. Thankfully no one there thought of deactivating some tabs (they would be available back to customization link), would be a solution with no side effects, with zero changes to the UI. @dalacor probably missed that, but has the same problem with me.

So I guess this idea, is a reply missing from that closed topic. Unfortunately I don’t have more time to spend on this idea.

The dirty solution I’ve found is to make a user with no access to what I don’t use.

I pray for the poor users of the desktop version… no one told them that creating a single document 3 years ago in a tab, would be like marriage without a chance of divorce… :kissing_heart:

Imo it would degrade the Manager user interface because:

  • Managers functionality changes when tabs are opened. It has widespread effects on program behaviour else where. The program design enables users of a business which does not need particular functionality, to not have to learn about that functionality at all. However users are still sometimes confused by the different program behaviour. Adding a further state (on, off, disabled) would increase user confusion.

  • A consistent user interface enables operators to learn by reflex to look where a feature belongs when they want to use it. A consistent user interface enhances ease of use and reduces user support costs.

  • The tab change suggested in this thread does not address other users concerns on optimal tab layout for them. The issue as I understand it is the optimal layout varies with how a business uses Manager (screen size/resolution, number of modules/tabs activated).

@AntonisV your a clearly an intelligent person and I would like to be able to have constructive discussions with you, however if that is to happen then we must both allow the other to have a different opinion. You have directed many responses at me, I have not responded as that would be off topic and distract from discussion on your OP.

1 Like

It doesn’t have to be on, off , disabled. Only ‘On’ or ‘off’, but be able to be off without erasing the docs and transactions.

Totally wrong, take a look at this:

I was in the point “a” then I got to the point “b”, but I wnt to return to the point “a” because it’s much more easy to navigate through my day to day business.

But it will stay consistent. I am not saing to change anything, I just want to go to customization and disable some tabs.

Manager lets me do it in the first place, but when I am pressing “update” it returns to the previous state. Take a look:

Notice that, when I uncheck the tabs and update, they return and there is a small bug: the style of the tabs is now bigger and they fill all the screen. Also as you can see in the video, they remain unchecked even though they appear.

So in the end I don’t believe there is any inconsistency, just the user deactivated some tabs, the same way he in the first place enabled them. Where’s the problem?

I am sorry for putting up your name too many times. It was because I wanted to explain to Eko that I wasn’t talking about him. The truth is I was afraid that you 'll take it the wrong way. Fortunately you didn’t, and stayed on the topic. thanks for that.