Video Screencast Help
Symantec Appoints Michael A. Brown CEO. Learn more.

Dynamic multiple tag-dependent endorsement functionality needed

Created: 30 Jul 2012 | 2 comments
ejohnson@starnlaw.com's picture
2 Agree
0 Disagree
+2 2 Votes
Login to vote

For image productions, Clearwell needs dynamic tagging functionality that makes it possible to endorse/stamp the footer or header of each image based the tag that has been applied to it within a multiple-choice set of tags specified for this purpose (e.g., the relevant tag set could simply reflect a choice between either "Confidential" or "Strictly Confidential"). When the production is run, the endorsement would print on each particular document based on the tag value within that multiple-choice tag set for that document.

Currently, since the tag-to-endorsement functionality in Clearwell v7.1.1 is static, one must run such a production in 3 parts: 1) first, documents tagged "Confidential," 2) then, those tagged "Strictly Confidential," and 3) finally, those not tagged either "Confidential" or "Strictly Confidential." Clearwell should instead be able to endorse/stamp the entire production based on the tag that has been applied to each document.

(BTW, the way that this is achieved in Concordance is to first populate an "endorsement" text field with the desired text and then refer to that field for the image endorsement. I suspect that Clearwell could instead spare us those intermediate admin steps by making it possible to just direct the software to produce images for all documents in a production folder with their respective endorsements in the footer reflecting the fact that that they've been tagged with one of the tags within a specified relevant multiple-choice set of tags--or with no endorsement if none of the tags within that specified endorsement set have been applied.

Thank you.

Comments 2 CommentsJump to latest comment

david_bao's picture

If you are looking to stamp a small number of tags onto your production images, then you can use the following workaround.

In the production folder settings, there are 6 positions in the header/footer where different information may be stamped.  In your example above, you could specify the top-left to be "Confidential", top-center to be "Strictly Confidential", and top-right to be "Not Confidential".  This way, each document will have the correct information stamped onto the header given the tagging information.

This workaround obviously isn't scalable if you 1) need to stamp a large number of tags or 2) are already using 5 of the header/footer positions.  We are looking into enhancing this area to be able to stamp more tag information, but could you say which of the following behavior you would expect?

  1. Specify one header/footer location to stamp ALL tag values of the document
  2. Specify one header/footer location to stamp ONLY the tag values of the document within a specific tag set (i.e. at the time of making your production settings, you specify only one tag set for the location)
  3. Specify one header/footer location to stamp ONLY the tag values of the document within a custom list of tags (i.e. at the time of making your production settings, you create a list of all possible tags)
0
Login to vote
Elton Johnson's picture

Thank you, David.

I think your option 3 (customizable membership of the operative endorsement tag set) would work best. If I understand your formulation of option 3, I believe that would cover any scenario that might occur, for dynamic endorsement at a chosen header/footer position using tag values. Brilliant conceptualization.

By the way, in the implementation it would be important to at least give the option to print the tag value in the footer as the endorsement with only the lowest level name, the actual tag name (e.g., STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL), instead of the entire tag "path" (e.g., B_Review Tags; 1_ PRODUCE in Full; STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL). I suspect that this is the usual expectation, that the tag value alone will be the endorsement, without the information about the position of that tag in the tagging structure.

Many thanks.

0
Login to vote