Jazz Forum Welcome to the Jazz Community Forum Connect and collaborate with IBM Engineering experts and users

TOC in textual artifact

Is it possible to generate a table of contents within a textual artifact using the header definitions?
This way a reader can easily navigate through the document.

0 votes



6 answers

Permanent link
Is it possible to generate a table of contents within a textual artifact using the header definitions?
This way a reader can easily navigate through the document.


Unfortunately not in RRC. The Reporting tools RRDG and RRDI can be used to create a TOC in a published document.

For the RRC we have an outstanding enhancement request

https://jazz.net/jazz03/web/projects/Requirements%20Management#action=com.ibm.team.workitem.viewWorkItem&id=41065

0 votes


Permanent link
Is it possible to generate a Table of contents within a textual artifact using the header definitions?
This way a reader can easily navigate through the document.


Unfortunately not in RRC. The Reporting tools RRDG and RRDI can be used to create a TOC in a published document.

For the RRC we have an outstanding enhancement request

https://jazz.net/jazz03/web/projects/Requirements%20Management#action=com.ibm.team.workitem.viewWorkItem&id=41065

Where we consider Requirements Composer as an active place for managing and working requirements the table of Contents would typically live outside of the requirements domain and in the reporting side where a document would be generated. I would agree that it could also be used as a easy way to navigate and access lists of requirements especially if you are viewing them as a specification.

Today you would have to create a TOC yourself and copy the links for the artifacts you want to include in your TOC. This would have to be manually managed and maintained but a number of us have done this for management and control.

We are working on a 2012 RRC plan concept called module (see latest RRC milestone release) which will allow you to effectively group requirements, structure artifacts and establish order. This will introduce a number of capabilities that will allow you to look at your requirements in a heading format and see things as you might expect in MS Word. From a usability point of view the Heading structure could be compared and used similar to a MS Word TOC.

-------------------------------------
Jared Pulham
RRC Product Manager

0 votes


Permanent link
Providing a means to provide a visual order/hierarchy in the artifact view will be HUGE. Please consider how users can recreate the decimal heading system used in Word..but applied to requirements relationships. Also, Please provide a means to change the type used in the "headings" that you will provide. If it is possible to BOLD the headings used in the view by folder and use the in the Artifact view to separate sections, that would be awesome.

Have reports print out that don't have a decimal heading structure that matches a decimal heading structure (As opposed to just the standard index number now being used) give the use no sense of the relationships in the printed document.

I have a company of new RRC users that are on the point of mutiny because I've taken away their Word-based requirements document. The biggest complaint I get is that they don't know if they are "seeing" all of the requirements.

The current tree view is VERY hard to read. The visual distinction (i.e vertical lines) between levels are hard to see on a screen.

0 votes


Permanent link
Providing a means to provide a visual order/hierarchy in the artifact view will be HUGE. Please consider how users can recreate the decimal heading system used in Word..but applied to requirements relationships. Also, Please provide a means to change the type used in the "headings" that you will provide. If it is possible to BOLD the headings used in the view by folder and use the in the Artifact view to separate sections, that would be awesome.

Have reports print out that don't have a decimal heading structure that matches a decimal heading structure (As opposed to just the standard index number now being used) give the use no sense of the relationships in the printed document.

I have a company of new RRC users that are on the point of mutiny because I've taken away their Word-based requirements document. The biggest complaint I get is that they don't know if they are "seeing" all of the requirements.

The current tree view is VERY hard to read. The visual distinction (i.e vertical lines) between levels are hard to see on a screen.

0 votes


Permanent link
Hi. I'm a new RRC customer. Is this the correct forum to submit RRC improvement requests? Thanks.

0 votes


Permanent link
The forum is a reasonable place to discuss potential improvement
requests with the RRC community. But an actual enhancement request
should be posted as a work item in the RRC project area:

https://jazz.net/jazz03/web/projects/Requirements%20Management#action=com.ibm.team.workitem.newWorkItem

You can either do this directly yourself, or work with Rational Support
or your sales rep to get the work item posted.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 12/12/2011 3:53 PM, daltman wrote:
Hi. I'm a new RRC customer. Is this the correct forum to submit RRC
improvement requests? Thanks.

0 votes

Your answer

Register or log in to post your answer.

Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.

Search context
Follow this question

By Email: 

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here.

By RSS:

Answers
Answers and Comments
Question details

Question asked: Nov 23 '11, 6:04 a.m.

Question was seen: 10,796 times

Last updated: Nov 23 '11, 6:04 a.m.

Confirmation Cancel Confirm