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

[Richard Terry]

snip >
>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.

Obviously everyone should still comment/postconcerns/raise objections/point 
out other possibilities. 

My interest in this is not to just push my paradigm, but to ensure gnuMed gets 
running with the best possible functionality - and I don't presume to beleive 
that I alone can do that. In fact the current mixture contains elements from 
many different inputs, and quite rightly so.

 Where I think I have the skill is to integrate much of this both visually and 
functionally. 

The current SOAPtext control is a good example. The edit area's I designed in 
VB work brilliantly, in part because vb is visually and  programmatically 
easier than wxPython, but there are inherent design problems in wxPython. 
However, having put out my functionality wish-list to the list, Ian was able 
to do the coding to modify the programming editor as I suggested to form the 
basis for an improved version of the editing area concept. Karsten originally 
took my popup word suggestion lists as used in VB and implemented it in 
wxPython, python etc.

>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.

I would hope people are not so thin skinned as to say "where does richard get 
off thinking he is master......", that's not what it is about. I can't 
possibly know all the answers for the gui, all the best ways, but I can, do 
and will sit and spend hours fiddling with combinations and permutations or 
the screen (usually in QT designer) or VB,or wxPython,  to see what does 
functionally work. At the end of the day however, someone has to be able to 
say that from their experience, I think xyz will work.

And yes, I won't get it right all the time, yes I'll balls some things up, yes 
others will chip in and correct the process, yes in version nnn from users 
experience and combined wishes stuff will be changed,  but someone needs the 
hand on the gui-design tiller, and that was what I was designated to do in 
the first place.

Regards

richard



On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:13 pm, you wrote:
> 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?