gnumed-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Ok - I'm up and running - project needed.


From: Jim Busser
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Ok - I'm up and running - project needed.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:13:35 -0700

On Jul 15, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Richard Terry wrote:
I wish somewhere in your hearts you could put some trust in my abilities to make things functional and just, even for a period of say two months, follow my instructions blindly regarding the gui, and just do what I say to improve
the look of the gui and its functionality

This has come up more than once and maybe it is in the interest of the project to address it now, so that we either commit (say through 0.1) to let Richard drive the GUI, or to more clearly resolve why not. Warning: while 9 more paragraphs follow, most are bearably short :-)

I can agree that during any one iteration (like getting to 0.1) it behooves us to work consistently under one GUI plan.

Only a few have commented, but most have so far seemed supportive of the Richard/Ian SOAP widget and where not, maybe only through misunderstanding.

I think we should give it a "go" . We may just need to be mindful of the following:

It is possible that there may be some uneasiness / unhappiness about the choices along the way!

a) even the "technical" people may not be able to see their way fully to the end of a 0.1 GUI implementation until it has been tried, i.e. to know in advance whether everything (maybe some key things) that Richard wants, or will want, will be deliverable. However, though we cannot predict these in advance, we can discover them on the way, and likely in such event we can find acceptable (if not ideal) solutions.

b) part of any uneasiness might derive from intermittent limitation on Richard's part, in either time or in his ability to convey by email particular reasonings, but maybe it is only through a successful implementation that the reasoning and the "pros" -- which presumably may outweigh any "cons" -- can be better experienced and thus understood. And if it proves to be broken (not able to be made to work satisfactorily) then at least Richard can know it wasn't for lack of most people having given it a real chance.

NB on b) I still have trouble with the idea of an editing area in which arrow keys permit the insertion point to travel anywhere within the entire area, and the Enter key will start a new line *provided the insertion point is in mid-text*, yet in the face of an insertion point begging to receive more text input, or pending a request for a new line, the Enter key will otherwise behave quite unconventionally and IGNORE the insertion point, NOT exit saving the SOAP note, but JUMP somewhere. And yet, if we give Richard the nod, I will accord him the responsibility of devising a consistent and satisfactory system, if not up front, then fixed in due course. Ordinarily I and others would think we should still post any worries or concerns, trusting Richard will at least note them, and give them due consideration before disregarding, if that is his decision. Richard would need to advise whether "blindly" means no questions, or whether alternative views are welcome along the way, maybe sent to him and Ian privately, but without them having to feel the need to explain or defend everything along the way.

c) it is pretty clear to me that Richard would not be asking other people to take a lead in the coding if he were able to do most of it (or even lead it) himself. Therefore a deliberate mindset would be needed by all during this effort, if I can reference the John Belushi film "Animal House", to NOT listen to the devil on the left shoulder saying "where does Richard get off, thinking he is the master and we are the slave" and instead think "let's cut him however much slack I/we can". Any pessimists can even reserve the right to expect to be able to say (silently I hope) "I told you so", but hopefully with a *sliver* of willingness to be proven wrong. Flames tolerated, though my intent was to dampen rather than fan any.

Sorry for preaching, especially without a license, let alone training, but can we achieve a consensus?





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]