UI Change Request: Phone Number Clarifications

[aaronjosephchamberlain]

As I was contacting several people in our ward over the weekend I realized a rather annoying flaw in the current design or UI of the LDS Tools App that I hope be brought into consideration.

As of right now, on the iOS LDS Tools, phone numbers for individuals are listed as "Household" and then the phone number. Of course, tapping on the number brings up the interface to Call, Send Text Message, or Cancel the press. Interestingly, however, absolutely nothing is stopping clerks from putting home landline numbers in this field. And this is what I discovered. Not knowing that some of the numbers for "Household" were landlines, I hit text and it never reached those people. After realizing this, I spoke with someone in our YSA ward who has the job of sending texts to all activities that occur. I asked them about this issue and they noted that they have simply noted which numbers are which, but that the change wasn't made by the clerk because both numbers are listed.

So the proposal that I would like discussed is whether or not a field/checkbox should be added to the online membership record form that determines whether a phone is a cell phone or not. This could then be used in the logic of the app to display the currently existing options for cell phones and only the "Call" option to those that do not have texting capabilities (i.e. not a cell phone). It seems that many informally are well aware of which numbers are which in the directory, but it can be confusing to those who have never contacted a specific person before. Confusion shouldn't belong in a directory.

Thoughts? Opinions? Suggestions? Thanks.

[sbradshaw]

It'd be great if this problem were somehow addressed, but it's complicated because not every cell phone or cell plan is set up to receive texts. You might also have members who are on a plan that charges per-text who wouldn't want to pay every time they get a message from the ward (texting is even more expensive in other countries, which is part of the reason that WhatsApp is so big in South America and Europe).

Maybe the fields could be completely separated as different contact methods: a "text messaging number" and a "voice number," which could each have their own privacy settings in the directory.

[aaronjosephchamberlain]

sbradshaw: agreed. I figured it would be a complicated solution given the countries the app must address, but that's why I brought it up. I happen to be one of those that is charged per text (albeit I'm on iOS, so most aren't actually SMS). The tool I programmed for the calling that sends out text alerts is limited to the SMS language capacity so at worst a person would only receive 20 texts from us (one a day for each activity we host).

Would it be absolutely ridiculous to simply have a field that is their "primary contact?" and the associated type? I.E. if they really wanted to be contacted via WhatsApp, then that would be listed?

[rootbeericecream]

I also request this feature. It doesn't seem that complex an issue. Simply have a checkbox which enables or disables the icon for sending a text message in the Member Tools app.

[russellhltn]

It doesn't seem that complex an issue.

I wouldn't underestimate that. In it's simplest form, it would have to be a flag that's handled and communicated between LCR, the Directory (so individuals can enter it), and Member Tools. And that's assuming the people entering the phone number it know what kind it is.

Based on the other message, it sounded like the church was looking for a way that could be determined automatically. But given number portability, that could be tricky. What was once a landline number might now be assigned to a cell phone.

[rootbeericecream]

I think the issue is the assumption that _any_ phone number in the app is SMS capable. By including the texting icon there, ward members and leaders do assume that a SMS message can be sent, and will be received by the recipient. If the phone number is not SMS capable - then there is no feedback that a message was not sent, nor received -- resulting in misunderstandings.