Yeah, I got that even a starting point would be good. 99% or more of our events are “one-price-fits-all”, as well.
I am just concerned because generally, developers aren’t familiar with how the software is ultimately used, since they aren’t necessarily scouts or scouters. Therefore, they might not contemplate the importance of leaving hooks to hang a particular feature expansion (like ability to offer differing cost options) on later. That, and limited resources, are part of the reason that revamping the calendar and RSVP system is such an enormous job now.
@jacobfetzer makes a good point, too. Even “simple” features can have significant complications. What about the display of the event cost? As a leader, if I want to accommodate multiple costs (or not use the Scoutbook payment log), I don’t want the interface to list $0 as the cost in the event. The event’s not free, I just don’t want to use the payment log feature automated charges here. How should that look on the UI side?
I would say that there should, IMHO, be:
- The ability to set an RSVP deadline (previously requested, and I believe in the backlog for calendar RSVP in general)
- The ability to differentiate “Not yet responded” from an active “Maybe”. (previously requested, and I believe in the backlog for calendar RSVP in general)
- The ability to differentiate a “Yes” from a “Yes and paid”.
- The ability to set more than one cost level and for the user to indicate what cost level they have chosen.
- The ability for the event coordinator to indicate whether or not they will use the payment log auto-charge feature, and for the interface to visually distinguish between a zero-cost event and an event that isn’t using the payment log.
- The ability for the event coordinator to indicate whether or not “charges” are revokable/refundable if the RSVP status changes, and whether that is permitted to occur automatically or only with active approval by the event coordinator.
There are probably more features that could go on this list. What are the wish-list features you would include, @JamesLockman?