OnDemand User Group

Support Forums => Documentation => Topic started by: Helle V. Justesen on September 22, 2015, 07:19:13 AM

Title: Client 9.5.0.1 issue ?
Post by: Helle V. Justesen on September 22, 2015, 07:19:13 AM
Hi
I'm new to Ondemand - I have upgraded the client to v. 9.5.0.1 - and then suddenly some of my AFP doucments are missing the last bit  - when I then choose View - reset View - then I can see the 'missing' lines. Can anyone explain why it suddenly works like that?   I have just made a plain install  ...

I also have an issue with some areas that are white in the v. 9 client - but in the version 9.5.0.1 the same areas are suddenly black - how come?

any help is much appreciated ..
BR
Helle
Title: Re: Client 9.5.0.1 issue ?
Post by: Justin Derrick on September 22, 2015, 10:06:53 AM
Ah, welcome to AFP-to-truetype font hell.  ("Fy faen", as you could say.)

It's always best to have the latest version of the client.

9.5.0.3:  http://www.ibm.com/support/fixcentral/swg/quickorder?parent=Enterprise%2BContent%2BManagement&product=ibm/Information+Management/Content+Manager+OnDemand+for+Multiplatforms&release=9.5.0.3&platform=All&function=all&source=fc%7C

If your documents don't display properly in the new version of the client, consider opening a PMR with IBM.  It's difficult to tell you where the problem is without access to the data.
Title: Re: Client 9.5.0.1 issue ?
Post by: Helle V. Justesen on September 23, 2015, 01:01:23 AM
Hi

thanks for the quick reply - I have now installed v. 9.5.0.3 - and unfortunately it hasn't changed anything - the black fields are still black and the lines are still missing until I make the 'reset view'...

The odd part is that if I save the document in a file - and use anoter viewer - the document looks alright - all the lines are there and the white fields are white and not black ....

I guess I just have to try to make the PMR ...

BR
Helle
Title: Re: Client 9.5.0.1 issue ?
Post by: Helle V. Justesen on October 15, 2015, 06:18:42 AM
Hi
just a follow-up on this issue - I opened a PMR at IBM and they acknowledged it was an issue - so the fix will be a part of the v. 9.5.0.4 client.

best regards
Helle