Although all conditions are forwards compatible with relevance equations, there are myriad relevance equations that can never be converted back into conditions. So, if a survey uses any custom relevance, it is impossible to create print previews that looked like those in 1.91+.

I see the following options:
(1) If people want the 1.91+ style print-preview, let them import their survey into 1.91+ and create the print preview

(2) Modify the equations generated by EM to be a little more friendly - for example, users won't care about the suffix, so that equation could be (K01 != "5"). As long as the print preview shows the question name (K01) and the mapping of internal code values to the display choices (e.g. 1) Mild; 2) Moderate; 3) Severe), then it will be relatively easy for users to read the relevance equations and figure out whether they should answer those questions.

(3) Re-introduce the condition-printing code into print preview (it was removed), and have it display only for questions that do not use custom relevance (e.g. it is auto-created from the conditions editor). If so, the challenge is what to do with custom relevance equations - just show them as is now, or something else. Enough other changes have been made to 1.92+ that I expect that it isn't as simple as adding back the legacy code, but that it would have to be upgraded quite a bit.

So, given the level of effort needed to implement solution #3 (or even #2), and given that solution #1 is a viable work-around, I recommend tabling this (e.g not trying to do it in 1.92) and considering it as an enhancement for version 2.

I would like to add that it would be good if not only in print preview but also when looking at the question it would be "user friendly" to not see the formula but the expression.

Solutions 1. and 2. are really not that user friendly. Keep in mind that most users are no geeks :-)

I vote for re-implementing the 1.91 condition printing and also extend it to the question view at the admin backend to help users "understand" simple conditions.
For advanced conditions using new EM feature we would probably have to use the pure EM syntax because such conditions could be very complex.

Mazi-

You should consider giving authors the option to show equations vs. the 1.91 style. For what it's worth, all of the customers I've worked with (public health researchers and epidemiologists) much prefer equation syntax since they are administering interviews that last 20 minutes to several hours, and it is much easier to flip back to a page and see what answers you have circled (e.g. the answer code) than to have to read the verbose description of the condition and cross-reference that with each of the answer choices for the preceding questions. I think those customers would call themselves pragmatists rather than geeks.

However, that use case is having research assistants administer paper interviews to someone else. A subject answering for themselves might find the more verbose conditions easier to understand.

So why not showing both, first a more verbal syntax and then the equation syntax in brackets:
"Only answer this question IF question X was answered Y (qx=='y')."

Hi,
I hope this bug report is not abandoned.
It seems like the 1.92 style is nisched only for reserachers and epidemiologists, the rest of the users are just out of luck on this one.
Without verbose conditions the print version is useless for field surveys. It makes it also very dificult to get overview of the conditions when composing the questionnaire.
I don't understand what you mean by "it is much easier to flip back to a page and see what answers you have circled (e.g. the answer code)". Flip back to which page?
It looks like this when I try to print the survey:
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° ((1_5.NAOK == "Y"))

There is no question 1_5 anywhere else on the print-out, and NAOK does not hint wich option from the multiple-choice question was selected. This defeats the purpose of the Printable Version, and breaks a functionality that has been around since LS 1.8 as far as I know.

I also vote for re-implemeting the 1.91 condition printing and I am willing to make a donation if this gets fixed within 7 days.

Best regards
/Boyko

Just a very simple thought: if we add a new field to the question (so available in all languages) that could hold a custum relevance "description", we could print the equation if the description is empty but allow people to write out something they want to see when they need it. Ofcourse this doesn't enforce the two to match, but at least people can use the print without modification again if they need it.

Hmm..I am also working in a public health institute. At them moment we are looking at finding a survey software that would (among other) allow online as well as paper based surveys (print version). The latter is really important for us. ARE the readable descriptions of the conditions coming back? If yes, approximately when (weeks, months?)? If not...oh dear...we have to keep looking for other survey softwares....

regards
M

Fix committed to master branch: http://bugs.limesurvey.org/plugin.php?page=Source/view&id=11540

New version 2.00 build 120206 released.

Fix committed to 2.1 branch: http://bugs.limesurvey.org/plugin.php?page=Source/view&id=11590