[Gnumed-devel] Measurements selection, formatting, behaviour

[Jim Busser]

Single-cell "selection" is presently non-obvious, hence annoying.  
When you click a cell, its borders are bolded however the Action  
button rejects this as not properly selected... either the cell needs  
to be part of a multi-cell selection or it needs to be double- 
clicked. Double-clicking will open the editor but, upon exiting the  
editor (even if a Save was done) the cell is not considered "selected".

You can identify whether cells are considered "selected" by whether  
or not they are shaded.

When the Select button at bottom would not correspond to the cells  
that would be of interest (say, the abnormals) then the current trick  
to make a multi-cell continuous selection is to click inside a cell,  
and hold down the shift key, and use an arrow-key to extend the  
selection, including the original cell.

It seems presently unsupported to be able to make a discontinuous  
selection.

========

In the wiki it says "if the cell holds multiple values..." but should  
this be "when a selection holds multiple values..." (GNUmed will let  
you choose which *one* to edit? But how?)

========

Does it make sense to permit designating, as "clinically relevant",  
measurements that are normal, or might it make more sense to require  
them to be technically abnormal as a condition of making them (also)  
clinically relevant?

========

In case there would be imported results where
- the importer did not receive, and therefore cannot supply, a value  
for the field "abnormality_indicator" BUT
- the result is < > of supplied lower and upper limits (and readily  
computable as technically abnormal) (as opposed to a lab-supplied  
range of "50 - 60" which would be more difficult to parse with  
clinical reliability)

then until this result is signed, is it feasible to compute it and  
display it as being "technically abnormal" and to therefore display
        ++
or      --

and this way the process of signing can (with less work, and with  
less error), allow these to be technically "Leave as is" meaning sign  
them as technically abnormal?


========

It appears that users are permitted (via the editing measurement  
window) to supply their own value into the indicator column, thereby  
either filling in a blank or, as the case may be, replacing what was  
previously there?

========

I did notice that when I supply my own value of "!!" that this "!!"  
does not get displayed into the grid... is it because the plugin  
refuses to display values other than + and - ?


========


When we say in the wiki that results designated clinically relevant  
are "bold" is the fact that mine show in red (and, I think, bold ergo  
red-bold) a reflection of deliberate programming, or some quirk of my  
desktop?


========

Presently the existence of any clinician-added comments is hinted by  
ellipses … following on the result however might it be better to  
follow on the abnormality indicator, if one exists, in other words in  
place of
        17.3…(++)
do
        17.3 (++) …

?

Possibly, ellipses following immediately after the result itself were  
going to be used to communicate truncation, when the result was a  
text result that would otherwise require too wide a column?