Member
The 2.2.2 version of the calendar is solely about implementing the new global header and footer to ensure a uniform look and feel between the main lds.org site and the calendar app.
mbromle wrote:We are on Win 7 and using IE 8.00.7600. Is this issue related to the new release?
Calendar formating issue with IE8
washton50 wrote:But I think the site should format for all browsers, as most of the church population would not necessarily be on the latest version.
kyleq wrote:The 2.2.2 version of the calendar is solely about implementing the new global header and footer to ensure a uniform look and feel between the main lds.org site and the calendar app.
Still unable to make any reservations
One topic per thread please. The topic of reservation editing issues is discussed in the Unable to add/edit reservation details thread.washton50 wrote:I loaded FireFox to get the formatting correct. However, I am still unable to edit any reservations. Screen just comes up empty when I select edit reservation.
johnsonth wrote:\I think most people, if using Internet Explorer, will have IE9.
Good to know. The new Lenovo computers come with Chrome, not sure about the Dells.johnsonth wrote:See this post, "Recommended Browsers for LDS.org Tools." https://tech.lds.org/blog/531-recommended-browsers-for-ldsorg-tools ...on clerk computers that only have Windows XP, clerks can't run IE9, only IE8. Therefore to avoid issues, definitely use another browser, such as Chrome or Firefox.
I use an app at work that is still not compatible with either IE9 or Firefox or Chrome, only IE8 and earlier. Typically forward compatibility is the issue, not backward compatibility. Although it's nice to take advantage of new technology, given that there is a whole world out there with who knows what we probably have to be conservative. But I'm a function over form person.johnsonth wrote:I think most people, if using Internet Explorer, will have IE9.
craiggsmith wrote:Good to know. The new Lenovo computers come with Chrome, not sure about the Dells.
Never mind the general membership. Johnsonth's own announcement says that 67 percent of clerks computers aren't supported. That doesn't seem like a very good upgrade to me.RussellHltn wrote: I don't think that saying IE8 isn't supported is going to go over very well.
Viewing calendar
If you are using IE8 this issue was first reported in post #6 of this thread. You will have to use another browser until it is fixed. Firefox and Chrome are fully tested and have no problems.dnickolson wrote:When I go to calendar now (as administrator of stake website) all I get is a LIST of the calendars color coded down the left side of screen. I can't get it to actually open up the stake calendar.
dnickolson wrote:When I go to calendar now (as administrator of stake website) all I get is a LIST of the calendars color coded down the left side of screen. I can't get it to actually open up the stake calendar.
LisaAn wrote:This has been previously reported and will be fixed in the next release of Calendar. Unfortunately, we were not able to get into this small release that only updated the header and footer for Calendar. Thanks for your patience.
I've seen a couple minor problems with Chrome and Firefox as well, but no show-stoppers.jdlessley wrote:Firefox and Chrome are fully tested and have no problems.
But this doesn't apply if it's the standard does it?RussellHltn wrote:According to policy, stake president approval would be needed to install new software.
craiggsmith wrote:But this doesn't apply if it's the standard does it?
No, I don't know of anywhere that says what the clerk computers should be able to access.RussellHltn wrote:Except what is "the standard" and who as the authority to set it? If I was to play hardball, I'd think it would be set by the desktop support folks, not the website developers. Then again, is there any requirement that clerk computers be able to access the calendar? It would be nice, but I don't think you could find a policy that says it must be so.
craiggsmith wrote:the current standard image on Lenovo machines now includes Chrome, and that seems authorization enough to install it on existing machines.
Definitely!RussellHltn wrote:It seems ironic to me that the machines that come with Chrome are new enough that they don't have to resort to using it.