If you’re a Zendesk user, you may very well have 10s, 100s, or perhaps even 1000s of Triggers. They provide a useful function, but as they grow in number, it can become increasingly difficult to visually navigate through the list and find them.
There is a recent article that suggests creating “blank triggers” to provide an improved level of organization. The approach feels wrong for two reasons:
- The introduction of “blank triggers” feels hacky. Admittedly, most any approach is to some extent a hack trying to work around the lack of any in-app organization.
- It continues to make use of the default Zendesk trigger naming convention, which I believe can be improved.
On point #2, the default naming scheme used by Zendesk is to describe the action taken (e.g. “Notify requester of comment update”). For the last several years, I’ve taken the approach of naming triggers by the event that… triggers them. Make sense? I think so. Here are some examples:
- Ticket > Created
- Ticket > Created > Without Group
- Ticket > Created > Priority Urgent
- Ticket > Updated
- Ticket > Updated > Assignee Changed
- Ticket > Updated > New Comment > Public
- Ticket > Updated > New Comment > Private
- Ticket > Closed
- Ticket > Reopened
- Ticket > Solved
In my experience, this has multiple advantages:
- It’s easier to scan
- It may reduce the number of triggers needed, as you can have multiple actions defined for any given triggering event(s).
- For me, it’s easier to think about by the triggering action. YMMV.
It’s not a perfect solution. It still requires manual sorting to keep them grouped together. Hope that helps, and let me know what you think.
댓글을 남기려면 로그인하세요.