It occurred to me that scheduling conflicts can vary in severity. Consider the following 'Typical' recording profile and some conflict scenarios as follows:
|--WarmUp--|----Padding----|------Programme------|----Padding----|
A |-------------------------Recording-------------------------|
B |---------Recording------------|
C |---Recording---|
I propose the following scale of severity:
0 = No conflict.
1 = Part of the warm-up period will be missed.
2 = 33% or less of either padding will be missed.
3 = 66% or less of either padding will be missed.
4 = More than 66% of either padding will be missed.
5 = 25% or less of the target programme will be missed.
6 = 50% or less of the target programme will be missed.
7 = 75% or less of the target programme will be missed.
8 = More than 75% of the target programme will be missed.
9 = Recording interrupted but restarted. (Started OK but stopped by a higher priority recording, restarted at a later time.)
10 = Recording never started.
Using the examples above, 'A' would be severity 1, 'B' would be severity 4 and 'C' would be severity 5.
Each recording in a conflict group will have its own severity value and the group will be assigned the highest severity value of any recording within that group.
Perhaps a 0-10 scale is overly complicated. Perhaps something simpler would suffice:
Conflict 'A' could be considered 'Trivial' because only the warm-up period is impinged upon and the padding and programme are fully covered.
Conflict 'B' could be considered 'Minor' because although the padding is impinged upon, the whole programme is covered.
Conflict 'C' could be considered to be 'Major' because part of the target programme has been missed.
Regardless of the scale used, the background colour, or other design feature, of any warning icon could be used to indicate the severity of the conflict.
