Policy use for IRS Form 1040 Schedule C

[qthrul]

First -- slick new look, love the flows

Second -- as someone that has a variety of expenses be mindful that
expansion by general ledger layout will create a design aesthetic of
landscape over portrait very quickly with more granular layouts such
as IRS Form 1040 Schedule C

i.e.
category1,2,3,4,5,6---20
vs
category 1
category 2
category 3
...
category 20

Just something to be mindful of --- you might consider populating a
report with dummy data for all 20 categories to review the UI impact
(scrolling to the right).

Thanks,
Jay

[David Barrett]

Good suggestion. The matrix view is only really there for historical
reasons: that's what an expense report typically looks like, so we
follow suit. However, you're right that it doesn't really "scale" to a
wide array of groups.

With this in mind we added a "Detailed View": it grows vertically rather
than horizontally. Basically, it breaks out each group into a separate
subtotaled table.

We're also thinking of adding a third "List View" that just shows
everything in on big list, perhaps sorted by group.

I *think* with these three options we'll span the gamut of possible
report layouts. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve the
report output with a new layout, or any other way?

One idea would be to explicitly disable the default "Matrix" view when
there are too many groups, forcing you into the "Detailed" or "List"
views. Because I agree, scrolling to the right is bad (and not fitting
on a single printed page horizontally is even worse).

-david

[Ken Jowe]

FYI.  I like having the flexibility from the multiple views.  The Matrix view is a nice legacy perspective.  It's also helpful for accounting - since that's how information may be cross referenced / bucketed / entered.  Some of this becomes moot - if the data imports to the accounting system - then the accounting system becomes the data repository for reporting.  Regards.    - k --- On Tue, 12/8/09, David Barrett <dbar...@expensify.com> wrote: