Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling

[James Busser]

On 31-Mar-08, at 1:28 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> For reviewed one could use a checkmark character. For
> unreviewed one could use a crossed out checkmark. I haven't
> found a single unicode codepoint with a crossed out
> checkmark. So I figured to show a writing (signing) hand for
> those results that need signing. Other candidates would be:
>
>         http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2300/index.htm
>         http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/237B/index.htm

I am not keen on Unicode 2300 (the first of these inks) as it is a  
null sign...

I actually kind of like the second one, which is a

        NOT CHECK MARK

... IMO the above might be less ambiguous than the current signing  
hand, as the latter ambiguates

        sign this
        this has been signed
        write or attach a note or issue a communication

If you want to generate a screenshot of what "NOT CHECK MARK" would  
look like in a small grid, I could show both to a few clinical  
colleagues and report back their reactions :-)