🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Oct25.212714.26909@unislc.uucp> dave@unislc.uucp (Dave Martin) writes:
>From article <9480@milton.u.washington.edu>, by dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu (Dale Larson):
>> That looks like somewhat of an unnecessary pain.  If you have several string
>> gadgets, hitting return in one of them should move you to the next.  There
>> should be no need to touch the mouse.  Doing field processing code only on
>> [RETURN] and before going on to the next record makes your life easier. 
>> Hitting return each time makes the user's life easier.  So document that fact
>> and encourage him or her by not doing field processing unless [RETURN] is
>> hit or at the end of the record (and if you find an error in field processing
>> at the end of the record, tell the user about [RETURN] again).  
>[...]
>> -Dale Larson  (dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu)
>
>I come from the camp that software should be User Friendly, not
>	User:  You are required to do it this way, even though the O.S.
>	       Supports this way, and this way, 

You are the second person to make a similar comment.  Perhaps I didn't make 
myself clear enough.  I do believe in being as user freindly as is reasonably 
possible, regardless of the pain.  

I just do not see how processing the contents of
a string gadget every time the cursor is removed from it is necessary and
desireable.  In your example of updating a record you don't need to hit
[RETURN] under my scheme -- all string gadgets should be checked at the end
of that record (i.e. closewindow or a NEXT RECORD gadget or whatever).  It's
just that any sanity checking or whatever would not be applied until you hit
[RETURN] or indicated that it was time to go on to the next record.  While
you can argue that you'd like immdiate sanity checking on updates, I will 
reply that:

1)  Such immediate checking isn't very helpful since you're probably
only changing one field before going to the next record anyway.
2)  It is easier for the user to use [RETURN] to move to the next string
gadget for most opperations, so the user should be encouraged to do so.
and
3) [RETURN] should move the cursor to the next string gadget, but activating
another gadget should not.  The complexity introduced by several different
ways of processing string gadgets does not at all seem called for by or
supported by the operating systems and is getting close to, if not exceeding
the threshold of what is reasonable to expect from programmers.

Your point about what the operating system supports is very important.  We
seem to disagree about what the operating system "supports" (or perhaps about
what the word "supports" means in this context).  It is certainly the case
that if we all adhered to a style guide indicating how to handle this, the 
user would know what to expect (assuming s/he read the manual and/or used
the system much) and either solution would be acceptable.

>Now, will someone please tell me if my postings are making it past the
>building I work in?

They made it.
--
-Dale Larson  (dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu)