Co:?; Enq:?; Loc:?; Q:?; ETy:?; iVis:?;
(if so) This follows on from Q: [QTitle] if answered: [QItemShort]
[QDescrip]
The answer can have [only one option|multiple options].
Essential in [EnqName]
Essential in [EnqName]
Desirable in [EnqName]
Considering asking in [EnqName]
Not asking in [EnqName] (button for) ask it!
(if unconsidered) I have not decided whether to answer this question: consider answering
(if unanswered) I have not yet answered this question: give answer
(if answered) My answer is: [MyAns]
(if refused) I have refused to answer this question: reconsider
(if allowed) I want to suggest a modification to this question.
Diagnostics: ?
Key: {QID}; information from {QDetails}
Setting or modifying the wants for this question in the given enquiry, while at the same time being aware of own answer status
Note that the question/wants form will be different from the Q/A form. Usually a Q/A form has radio buttons for a single answer, whereas Q/W form has check boxes for each acceptable answer.
The point here is that asking the follow-on question only makes sense in the context of a particular answer to a wider question.
I have to document some good examples.
We should show the date of origin of this question, and some way of seeing previous versions.
We will try allowing multiple answers. The person asking an essential question has to choose between:
For desirables, as opposed to essentials, the first two options above would use the simple metric of +1 for each option checked by both sides. If an exact match is desired, then the metric could be +1 for each option that is the same, checked or unchecked, on both sides.
The following two conditions are logically possible, but are probably too confusing to use reliably.
It is probably better to deal with exclusions though binary questions.
The key question is, is it easy enough to define as many binary questions for all the options, or are there distinct advantages for a set being grouped together?