Reservation terminology

It seems to me that much of the confusion with the new calendar comes from the use of the word reservation. The calendar uses it to mean a very specific kind of reservation (ie that a resource is reserved for the use of a specific ward without actually indicating that someone is using the resource at that time). But many people (probably most) think of a reservation as actually booking the resource for use.

I wonder if there might not be a better term for what the calendar is currently calling a reservation. I was thinking that 'restriction' or 'unit restriction' may be a better term. That function basically restricts who can make an actual booking. Blocking a resource is really restricting the resource for scheduling by building schedulers only.

What do others think? Would that be a better term? Is there something else that would be more appropriate?

I realize that the developers would have to make code changes to really change the terminology and I'm not sure how other languages might be affected, but if we came to a consensus about better terminology then it might provide them with guidance on how to reduce the confusion that the current system creates for some.

eblood66 wrote:I wonder if there might not be a better term for what the calendar is currently calling a reservation. I was thinking that 'restriction' or 'unit restriction' may be a better term. That function basically restricts who can make an actual booking.

Works for me. There's certainly a misconception of what Reservations should be used for.

I agree that the term "reservation" creates confusion. That term means "booking" in so many other contexts -- if I reserve a hotel room, I full expect that I will be able to sleep there on the specified night. So the calendar system uses that term in a way that differs from most people's understanding.

The previous term was "assignment," and I think that was better (although confusion was still possible). I do like your suggestion of "restriction" even more -- it seems that it is even less likely to be misunderstood as booking a resource. But the term "reservation" was a very poor choice, and serious consideration should be given to changing it.

I do agree that there needs to be a change in words there but as i have said before you can not block any one by using the reservation calendar. Others can book at the same time and date as your block on the reservation calendar. So with wording change they could fix that too.

Moderator note:
Please, let's stay on topic and not fork the thread. The topic of this thread is the reservation terminology. To discuss issues with the reservation calendar topic please start a new thread or post in another thread relevant to that topic. Please refer to the Code of Conduct which states:

We encourage the following behavior:
...
Do not start a new topic in an existing thread; instead start a new thread.
...

I'm on board with finding another name that adequately reflects what is currently called a reservation. I think "restriction" works. Since there are two types of reservations, unit and blocked, adding those names to restriction then adequately describes them. A unit restriction sets aside resources for one unit. A blocked restriction blocks everyone except building schedulers from scheduling, or "booking", those resources.

I agree with the proposed terminology change of "reservation" to "restriction." I logged this as an enhancement in JIRA (the bug tracking tool for the calendar project). Also, the calendar team agrees that this term is causing confusion and needs to be changed. I tried to think through the ramifications of changing the term, because it's used in a lot of different places. Do you see any places where it may be problematic to use the term restriction?

johnsonth wrote:Do you see any places where it may be problematic to use the term restriction?

All I can think of is in the documentation, but I'm sure it's lurking in various messages, etc.

My main concern is not so much the term but rather that there is more than one type grouped under a single name. I like JD Lessley's suggestion of two different names.

johnsonth wrote:I tried to think through the ramifications of changing the term, because it's used in a lot of different places. Do you see any places where it may be problematic to use the term restriction?

Although there are several places throughout the UI and documentation where this term is used, I don't see how it could be problematic. The term "restriction" can be used pretty much everywhere that the term "reservation" has been used. But unlike the word "reservation," no one will be tempted to use the term "restriction" to refer to a "booking" or "scheduled resource" or the other terms we have tried to use to refer to what happens when an event actually gets a location/room.

Changing the term will make old forum posts a little hard to understand, but that's been true of all sorts of terminology changes over the years.