Apr 22 2020 06:57 PM
Apr 22 2020 06:57 PM
I changed the maximum number of attendees from 1 to 5. It won't let me now change it back to 1. The lowest it will go is 2.
I have tried "Inspect Element" to change the min number from 2 to 1. This allows me to use the down arrow feature to lower it to be 1. However, the change won't save and it reverts back to 2.
Also using inspect element to change the number directly to 1 also doesn't work.
May 01 2020 08:30 AM
May 25 2020 02:08 AM - edited May 25 2020 02:11 AM
Last week I couldn't set it to lower then 2.
This week I can't even change it.
Edit: When I edit the HTML and remove the disabled="" attribute from the field, I can edit and the setting gets saved. Microsoft only releasing untested alpha software recently. Annoying...
May 26 2020 01:36 AM
@O___O @l_christensen1085 Thanks for reaching out to us. Any service with maximum attendee as 1 is a single customer service and any service with maximum attendee as 2 or more is a multi customer service. As by design, we cannot convert single customer to multi customer or vice versa. Hence we cannot edit and save a number less than 2. You can create a new service for such scenario. Thanks for your interest in Bookings.
May 26 2020 04:12 AM - edited May 27 2020 07:26 AM
@Radhika_Khetan_MSFT If the number of attendees implicitly decides what type of service this is, then it's the wrong way to go. This is bound to raise confusion.
It would be better if you clearly advertise a service as a single-attendee or multi-attendee service and let the user explicitly decide what kind of service he wants to create.
To quote the Python philosophy: "Explicit is better than implicit".
But, that aside, I believe this is bad practice. Why can you lower the attendee number from 1000 to 2, but not from 2 to 1. I understand that you said in the backend are single- and multi-user services. But this seems very arbitrary. Programmatically, it makes no difference: if (Current attendees < Max attendees) then it is bookable, else it is not bookable. The current user experience is horrible.
Jun 15 2020 01:55 AM
@Radhika_Khetan_MSFTAre you open for feedback? I'd love to hear your opinions on my recent suggestion.
Aug 12 2020 03:02 PM
I can confirm what @Radhika_Khetan_MSFT said is accurate based on my experience. If your Booking service's "maximum attendees" is EVER saved to 1, then you can NEVER change it to anything else. If your service's "maximum attendees" is EVER saved as something !=1, then you can NEVER change it to =1. If you want to switch between !=1 and =1, you literally have to delete and recreate the service.
I don't understand why MS purposely implemented this "feature"!
Dec 07 2020 03:27 PM
This is a stupid limitation that should be invisible to end users.
If there are two separate event types in your backend, why don't you automatically create a new single invitee event, clone all the information from multi booking to standard, then delete the original rather than just create more work for the end user?
Jan 04 2021 03:16 PM
This is absolutely, unjustifiably insane behavior from a company of your size and reach. Wow. I'm honestly floored.
I'm now going to have to recreate 50 services because we didn't realize that 2+ would not put customer details into the calendar invitations, just a message that says “This is a multi-customer booking. Login into Bookings….etc.” which is also poor functionality in its own right, though potentially justified.
The two issues together plus little guidance from MS are going to cost me many hours. Ouch.
Jun 15 2021 05:56 AM
Feb 13 2022 05:47 PM
@AndrewCecka Having to recreate services because of the lacking calendar information is my pain point too. There was no indication that allowing 2 people to book would do this and to not be able to change it back? Not good at all.
Microsoft, at least add a little pop-up that says 'if you change this to more than 1, booking information will no longer show in calendar'. C'mon.
Jun 22 2022 11:32 PM - edited Jun 22 2022 11:40 PM
What solved the problem in a minute and quite easy for me:
Ways to improve:
What I did not need to look into