I'm not sure if this will help, but one of the major differences between Service Portal and Web Access/Self Service is the ability to construct a URL that is embedded in the email that takes you straight to the relevant action for approval. This means that when that manager clicks on the link they will be presented with the Authorise/Reject actions rather than needing to navigate their way to the correct place.
It doens't mean you lose the general layout and content, just that you don't need to worry about them 'getting lost' on the way.
Thank you for replying.
We have been testing in 7.4 and the link in the email and it takes the manager/approver directly to the request.
The have actions to either to approve or reject, but in addition, they have the options on the tool bar that were not there in Service Portal, i.e. Time Zone, Preferences, etc.
However, from what your telling me, there is a better way to do this ?
If the the email link was constructed better, it could take them to just the actions, along with text explaining wht they are approving ?
Is this a correct statement. I've attached a screen shot of what they are seeing now....
Nomally there would be actions available on the left, but the request in the screen shot was already completed.....
Snap1.jpg 69.0 K
In 7.3 you could indeed supress these options by not including the module in the design, but for 7.4 they have been hard coded in. Several people have commented on this already but as the new version is seen by LANDesk as a different product, such differences are not seen as regression bugs, but correct operation.
To get this fixed you can either ask the LANDesk SI team to remove them but that will incur charges or vote for one of the several ERs that highlight this and express your views to your account manager to get some leverage on getting this enhancement implemented.
Would be one that covers this and a couple of ither areas.
Thanks for the response Dave.
I know it's not the best option, but I think I might be able to comment out some of the functionality in the code.
I looked at the link you posted and it's what we would like.
I think Dave has, as usual, pretty mouch covered anything I was going to add to the conversation.