I am sending a lot of emails based on a signature. There is some information in the signature that I modify manually every time. I am wondering if outlook offers some feature to make it easier.
I tried signatures, it saves a lot of time but it is time consuming to change all the text that is variable every time
What I am expecting is to find the best way to accomplish what I want. Which is having some kind of form where I enter all the variables that outlook would be able to position in the right place (Each field in the form would go to the right place in the message (I am using signatures for now)).
You would have to do that programmatically either when the signature is inserted or when a message is sent.
Related
I'm in the process of building a bot and the experience has been challenging for me so far. This is most likely since I'm coming from v1 and I'm trying to rebuild my bot in v4 style, which is pretty much a completely different framework it seems.
I find there's quite a lot of documentation out there, but it's been split up into theory and practice, probably due to the different development frameworks you can use (i.e. Node, C#). But having to go back and forth between these articles is not helping,
After quite a bit of messing around, I got to a point where things are beginning to get a bit more decent, but I still feel there's lots of room for improvement. I can't share the whole project at the moment, but I've created a gist of the most important code here: https://gist.github.com/jsiegmund/831d5337b1a438133991070daba8a27e
So my issues/questions with this code are the following:
The way to add dialogs and mainly the need to add prompts for retrieving the answers is confusing. I get the idea, but not the inner workings. For instance: I now have the prompts named after the same method names of the corresponding dialog step, is that the way it's supposed to work? There seems to be some magic code linking everything together, by convention? It would make much more sense to me when the waterfall steps would also include the prompts.
What's the right way of feeding the dialog with information so it can skip steps? I've got LUIS intents set-up in the main dialog which then open up this dialog for hour booking. Suppose my user says "I'd like to book 8 hours on customer X", I'd like the dialog to pre-populate the amount to 8 and the customer to X.
The customer/project resolving is maybe a not-so-standard requirement here. These come from a third party application, retrieved through API/SDK. So based on the logged-in user I need to go out to that application and retrieve the data for this user. This comes back in key/value pairs, where the key is a GUID. I don't want the user to type in GUIDs, so I have created these action buttons with the names of the customers, but to get the ID value into the next step it now 'writes' the GUID in the chat instead of the customer name. Using the name is tricky as I can't fully rely on those being unique. Also, for selecting the project I need the customer GUID and saving the final entry I also need the ID's. But I don't want the user to see those.
The way I now have the cards built is also weird to me. I first need to add a dialog for the card, and later when calling stepContext.PromptAsync I need to supply the card as an attachment as well. Feels duplicate to me, but removing either one of the steps fails. The normal style prompt doesn't work for me as that doesn't handle key/value but just strings (see number 3).
Okay, so those are some of the things I'm struggling with. I'm getting there and it works for now, but as said I can't escape the feeling that I'm not doing it right. If anyone could shine a light on this that would be highly appreciated.
Yeah, there is a lot of changes from version to version. Do you really mean v1?! 😲 Or v3?
The way to add dialogs and mainly the need to add prompts for retrieving the answers is confusing. I get the idea, but not really
the inner workings. For instance: I now have the prompts named after
the same method names of the corresponding dialog step, is that the
way it's supposed to work? There seems to be some magic code linking
everything together, by convention? It would make much more sense to
me when the waterfall steps would also include the prompts.
Essentially. The steps listed in the waterfall array are the names of the method names you've created. Basically, this is where you are giving the order of the steps that should be done by the bot. Prompts are classes used to retrieve data and are populated into the ("main") dialog using AddDialog() and are stored in dialog state with unique names so that they can be retrieved correctly. I see your point on how it might be simple to have everything setup in one "call" or declaration, and there probably could have been other approaches to how this was implemented; but this is what we got.
What's the right way of feeding the dialog with information so it can skip steps? I've got LUIS intents set-up in a main dialog which
then open up this dialog for hour booking. Suppose my user says "I'd
like to book 8 hours on customer X", I'd like the dialog to
pre-populate the amount to 8 and the customer to X.
Typically, steps use the previous steps value to reply, act or continue. In simple scenarios, skipping steps can be done by checking the state for those values. In the multiturn sample, if the user does not want to supply their age, it goes on to the next step and then it checks for the value and skips the step (it really doesn't skip it, it reports no age given, but you could just continue without any reply). Assuming the LUIS side of things is correct and getting the right intent+entities (let's say 'booking' intent and entities ['time' and 'customer']), then that should be doable. You would populate state info for both of those entities and then the later step (say prompting for the customer step) would just skip/bypass.
But, what you really want to do is look at adaptive dialogs. They are new and make this type of scenarios much more dynamic and flexible. Look here:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/bot-service/bot-builder-adaptive-dialog-introduction?view=azure-bot-service-4.0
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/bot-service/bot-builder-dialogs-adaptive?view=azure-bot-service-4.0&tabs=csharp
https://github.com/microsoft/BotBuilder-Samples/tree/main/samples/csharp_dotnetcore/adaptive-dialog
The customer / project resolving is maybe a not-so-standard requirement here. These come from a third party application, retrieved
through API/SDK. So based on the logged in user I need to go out to
that application and retrieve the data for this user. This comes back
in key/value pairs, where the key is a GUID. Obviously I don't want
the user to type in GUIDs, so I have created these action buttons with
the names of the customers, but to get the ID value into the next step
it now 'writes' the GUID in the chat instead of the customer name.
Using the name is tricky as I can't fully rely on those being unique.
I'm not 100% sure on this part. Let me look into it and get back to you.
Also, for selecting the project I need the customer GUID and saving
the final entry I also need the ID's. But I don't want the user to see
those.
State (conversation|user|etc) would be a good place to manage this.
The way I now have the cards built is also weird to me. I first need to add a dialog for the card, and later when calling
stepContext.PromptAsync I need to supply the card as an attachment as
well. Feels duplicate to me, but removing either one of the steps ends
in failure. The normal style prompt doesn't work for me as that
doesn't handle key/value but just strings (see number 3).
Nope, that's correct. I know it feels weird, but that is the way to do it. Basically, anything but simple text will be an attachment. Cards are JSON, therefore an attachment and you need to send that to the user/client.
You're doing it all correct. Again; I would suggest on looking at adaptive dialogs as that's the newer tech and the move forward. But otherwise; you're on the right path!
Is it valid to change the contents of lpstrFile on CDN_FILEOK via Hook on GetOpenFileName()/GetSaveFileName()?
The reason is that I may need to append additional information to the file name for GetSaveFileName(). The user could enter a generic name like "my file" and the program handles adding information user wouldn't know to add (already part of filter). Then it would check for overwrite and put up a question if okay to overwrite. If not, I can just use the custom data field, but I couldn't find any reference if it's allowed to change the contents of lpstrFile
TIA!!
Depends on your definition of valid. The designers of this API did not intend for you to do this but if it works, it worksâ„¢. These dialogs will probably not change their internal design ever again since Microsoft have a fair amount of application compatibility to worry about in this area and these dialogs were replaced by the COM based API in Vista+.
My recommendation would be to store the address of your buffer in lCustData as well before calling the Open/Save function and only modify that buffer. The dialog could in theory use its own buffer in some places and there might not be space for you to write anything in those and there is no way to figure out their size.
In practice, there seems to be no problem to play with the buffer behind Windows' back. In the past I have even replaced the actual buffer address with a new bigger memory block when implementing support for multi-file-select.
Is it better-practice to AJAX every form element separately (eg. send request onChange, etc) or collect all the data, then submit with 1 click save?
Essentially, auto-save or user-initiated-save?
I would generally say that a user-initiated save is the way to go for most web-applications. If for nothing else, this is how users are used to interacting with web apps; familiarity and ease of use is extremely important in web applications. Not to mention it can cut down on unnecessary traffic.
This is not to say that auto-saving does not have it's place, but often it can be cause unnecessary traffic. For example, if I am auto-saving a contact form, fill out my name, then email, then back to name to change it, that is already 3 requests that have been sent with no benefit - this is extra work for no added advantage.
Once again, I think it does have a lot to do with your application or where you are planning on using it. Inline edits are something that often uses auto-saving and there I think it is useful, whereas a contact form/signup form would not be a good idea.
I'd say that depends on the nature of your application and whether "auto-save" is a behaviour desired by your users.
"User initiated save" is what a user would expect from their experience with web forms nowadays - I would not deviate from that unless there's a good reason.
Depends on following factors:
What kind of data are you trying to save. E.g. is it okay to be able to save the data partly or you need to save it all at once?
How much data do you want to save? If you have many fields, you might want to send data in chunks (In case of wizards) or save everything at once
Its also a good idea to have data saved (in background) for large forms in a temp way if the user may take a long time to fill in the data (e.g. emails saved as drafts)
It also depends on your web app and the way you have designed your forms. In some forms you may allow certain fields to be modified and saved inplace, so that you can fetch additional data for example
In most cases it would be good to have an explicit "Save" action for your data forms
I am creating a new entity in CRM 4.0 to track our projects. One field is a Project Code, and I'd like to have a way to ensure that this field contains a unique value.
I understand that this is not a key, and it won't be used as a key, but for human readability/tracking purposes, it would be nice if I could tell the user that the code he just entered has already been used.
I am thinking that a webservice/javascript call will be necessary, but I wanted to see if anyone else has tackled this issue already.
Depends on how foolproof you want it to be.
The web service call is pretty lightweight, but if two people save a record at the same time, it's not going to detect it at that time, and dupe codes will happen.
A custom plugin would definitely detect dupe codes, but you don't get any feedback until after the user attempts to save. There's also still a small chance there could be repeat codes from users entering records.
The completely bulletproof way we've used is to have a plugin that checks a custom database table that we lock and then only let one plugin at a time through.
Am trying to write a piece of code which will allows the user to type text into a textbox which then gets saved on the server. When the user types some more text in the textbox, I want only the difference to be sent to the server.
Is there a difference algorithm for JS which I can use to send only information about the difference. So it should be able to tell the difference between two text boxes essentially.
It could also be language agnostic and I can port it.
Thank you for your time.
UPDATE
In simple words. I have a text area which keeps saving the text in the box every X seconds. Now to save bandwidth I only want it to send the difference from the last saved revision (which I can say put in a variable. Initially this will be empty). Now the JS has to check the difference between the last revision and the current state of the textbox and generate a change list to send to the server.
UPDATE 2
Something like www.etherpad.com
Google DiffMatchPatch has a Javascript implementation, I've used it with much success.
http://code.google.com/p/google-diff-match-patch/
The Python difflib module does this and more. It's very flexible but might be challenging to port to Javascript.
Regarding your update, I'm first wondering why you need to worry about bandwidth. Unless your users are typing a lot of text into an edit box (which has its own usability issues) then there just aren't that many bytes to send. Send the whole text box each time you autosave. Users can't type fast enough to really notice the use of bandwidth.
Or, you could meet halfway. Every time you autosave, check to see whether the user has only added new text to the end compared to the last time. If so, send an "append" type update with just the new text. If the user has gone back and edited anything else, then send a "replace" type update where you send the whole text. This takes care of the common append-only case without severely complicating your implementation.
Instead of calculating a diff between 2 texts, which is difficult,
you could always, while people are editting, record the keystrokes and the caret position in the textbox. If you send this over every now and then (and clean the buffer), the server can playback the exact same sequence.
This code-smells of premature optimization. Perhaps you should implement your solution first and then see about optimizing your transfer rates using diffs. How much text are you looking at? Because the request and response packets are going to be more or less the same size with only a few bytes difference for your message, so the savings could be very minimal.
At the very least, complete your solution without optimization and profile your network traffic using tools like Firebug and then test to see how much worse the performance is with what you would consider to be the maximum text block that could be sent.
Finally, you could always use the TypeWatch JQuery plugin to listen for change events in the textbox. You can set a delay so that once the user finishes typing and the delay elapses, the callback function is triggered. This means that the text will only be sent when the user types something, and only when they are finished typing. This will be significantly more efficient than repeatedly polling the server.
Depends on how far you are ready to go.
You would like to check deltav algorithm, it is used by svn in particular: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/svndiff