AdamS Posted May 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 Hmm when I share a case via Connect it shows as 'locked' when I open Team so I can't open it at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 You have to connect by opening a shared case, not directly. So in case manager please choose: Add > Open a shared case > etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted May 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 Connection refused when I attempt to connect in this fashion. We have SSL enabled for our Connect service so will this cause any problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 Hard to say - we will check ourselves. Keep in mind, however, that when you create/edit a shared case in TEAM then you provide a username which is then used to determine if user is authorized. If that user won't be granted with proper case access permission, then TEAM won't be able to connect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I suspect this is already on the road map or even in 1.7.4 but just in case it isn't... The systems notification tab from the admin dashboard, it would be nice to see the information expanded a little. For example I quite often see the warning that one of the users is using an old browser but nothing more. If the waning also included which user and what browser they were using then it would be easy for us to follow up and advise them directly rather than having to contact everyone to see who is using the old browser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 That should already be the case - see attached image. This modal window is shown when appropriate "How to fix it?" button is clicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I prolly should have clicked on the "how do I fix it" button Thanks Lukasz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 My pleasure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjrouse Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Have got Intella Connect setup and using on a live investigation. One feature request for a future release I like to see in Intella Connect is a better workflow manager that allows me to assign documents to particular reviewers. I don't want to have to create multiple reviewer tags and then tag specific documents for specific reviewers. Would be good if say I can automatically assign batches of 5000 or 10000 documents to reviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted July 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 +1 to what mark suggested above I recall having a conversation with someone discussing the merits of a percentage based allocation system as opposed to a 'type' based allocation system...and various other thoughts so I suspect this is on the road map already....I hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Must have been me Yes guys, this will be implemented in one of future revisions. I am not sure yet if that is going to be a single feature, or a part of a larger "workflow" mechanism as we are thinking about this lately. Would be good to hear more of your ideas in this area, as I expect pretty much each field and company has their own ways of doing things. We are of course keen to learn from that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjrouse Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 As a feature, I would like in the future to be able to share a case whilst still being able to access it in Intella Pro. The reason being is that if I receive a custodian's data, more often than not, I'm required to process it and make it available for review immediately, but of course, it doesn't mean this will be the only custodian's data I receive. No doubt, as time goes by I will receive more data that needs to be processed and made available for review through Connect. I simply can't kick everyone out of Connect so that I can make them wait until I've processed the new data. I don't want to create another case for this secondary dataset because I want to keep all datasets for a particular case together in one case. Would it be technically possible to process in Pro, and review data in Connect at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 The short answer is: not yet. We do understand that need, however. Next version of Intella products will contain a newer indexing framework which is built to keep up with extensions of this kind. It will take some time though before we implement something that would fulfill your request. On our roadmap we are also having server side indexing with Connect. When this feature will be ready, I'm sure it will allow to work on cases while next data sources are being indexed and added to the case. Some features might be partially limited, though, for the amount of time that is needed to update certain databases that Intella is managing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted February 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Have just had a look at 1.8.3 and have to say I'm really liking the way Connect is developing. A very small thing, the ability to add cases independently of TEAM is great, but would it be possible to have a 'browse' button to enable us lazy people to navigate to the case.xml file we want? At the moment we have to manually type in the address to find the file. A very minor thing but just a bit more user friendly if we can navigate to the file directly. Oh and any word on the ability to merge cases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Adam, I'll add your request to our roadmap, but it will have to wait until we get server side indexing ready (that has a priority and it's already being worked on ). No update on merging cases yet, sorry, but I assure you we have not forgotten about this feature. It's high on our priorities list, but we need to address others matters first before we can tackle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Server side indexing? Does that mean Connect will be able to index data independent of TEAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Hi Adam, That is correct, Connect will then be able to handle indexing by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted March 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 A couple more wishes for Connect The ability to hide data that is tagged is fantastic, how about adding an option to only hide the tag itself rather than the data it applies to. I'm thinking in terms of removing some visual clutter in cases where I may do the ground work for the client and I have 30 or 40 tags that I have used to create subsets and other various searches that may not necessarily be relevant to the end client. It would be fantastic if at the end of my work I could create a couple of tags that are for the client to review, upload it to Connect and have the ability to hide all my other 'working tags' so they only see the tags I want them to see but can see all the content. OR add an option for permissions where we can specify which tags a particular reviewer can see. By this I mean I could create a new profile caused 'client reviewer' then add a permission that says 'client reviewer' cannot see tags added by user 'adam'. That way when it comes time to add the tags I want to them to see I log in as a different user, add the tags and then they can see only those tags without losing access to any content. Hand in hand with that wish, when we are selecting the tags to hide it would be far simpler if Connect was able to provide a tickbox menu of all the tags currently in use on the selected case rather than manually having to type the tags to hide. You can imagine on a large case that may have hundreds of tags this can become cumbersome particularly when it comes to possible spelling errors which may render the attempt to hide them ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Hi Adam! In next version of Intella Connect we are planning to introduce hierarchical tags. Those will allow to group similar tags into logical sets. For instance, you could create a parent tag "work", "searches" or "final" and link new tags as their children. That way you could tell your client that for him only the "final" tags are relevant, and the others are just a by products of your own work. The other groups of tags will still be seen in the UI, but it will be a bit easier to work with them. Would that be a good enough replacement for the ability of hiding tags that you mentioned before? Commenting on the last question: I do think that this sounds more useful (we originally wanted to do it like this), but there is one limitation of that approach. It wouldn't allow you to create a permission for tags that do not exist in your case. Right now you can decide that the role "Junior Reviewer" cannot see anything tagged with "privileged". If you give access "Jake" (a Junior Reviewer) to 10 cases then you will make sure that he won't see anything tagged as privileged. You loose this ability when you bind this permission to tags existing in given case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 The hierarchical tags would certainly make it easier, I will hold off further comment until I see it in action and how it appears to the end client, but that sounds like it would do what I'm hoping. With regards to the second part I was thinking that when we select the tags to be hidden it was directly related to the case that was highlighted, but on checking again I think I understand that this tag hiding option is independent of any particular case, is that right? So we can pre-set the tag 'privileged' to be hidden from select users as a global setting, then anytime we use that tag it will be hidden regardless of the case? Which actually makes far more sense when I think about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Yes, exactly right - it's applied globally. It seemed like a more flexible approach for us when we designed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 I think the hierarchical tags will be of significant help, managing the clutters that reviewers get to see remains critical. Having the ability to restrict visibility of top-level tags to users with the respective permission would still be useful addition (one could, for instance, hide a top-level tag named 'preparation' or similar). On a slightly related note I have a question: Will it be possible to pre-populate tags such that in the end we'd have a top-level per custodian identifying all the items for a given custodian, including one sub-level tag each for all unique and all duplicate items for the respective custodian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Different wish-list item: In the 'Features' facet there are features that enable the querying and filtering for previewed and opened items. How about including similar features just that they work on the previewed/opened items as well as the items' duplicates? This would be similar to the tagging option that allows for tagging all the duplicates of an item at the same time. As an alternative/variant the query could also pull all the duplicates, excluding the primary item. In fact, if there was a generic way to do this for query and filter elements in the left column, this function could be provided for a set of features including Tagged, Flagged, Commented, Previewed, Opened, Exported, Redacted, all the tags created and all locations. Just food for thought. It would save quite a few manual queries using MD5 that are usually not well understood/appreciated by reviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted March 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Two wishes, think I may have mentioned one before.. Email addresses, in Intella there is the ability to select 'all email addresses' then use the dynamic search feature to quickly cut through the clutter. At the moment in Connect we only have the options for 'all senders' or 'all receivers'. Could the 'all email addresses' option be included there along with the dynamic search feature? Also it appears in the latest Connect that we can't select multiple fields to display. By that I mean if I conduct two keyword searches I can't highlght both of the coloured balls to see the combined content, I can only show one at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Adam, we will be adding "Addresses found in text", "All Senders and Receivers" and "All addresses" to the email facet in the next release. The facet filtering and ability to select multiple searches or multiple clusters is on our roadmap, but isn't assigned to particular version yet. This will have to wait for other features to be done first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts