Re: [Gnumed-devel] Measurements selection, formatting, behaviour

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:44:23PM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:

> Single-cell "selection" is presently non-obvious, hence annoying.

That's platform-policy.

> 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. 

No. It needs to be shift-clicked (or ctrl-clicked or something).

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

The wiki explains how.

> In the wiki it says "if the cell holds multiple values..." but should  
> this be "when a selection holds multiple values..."

It should be "if the *selected* cell holds multiple values".

> (GNUmed will let you choose which *one* to edit? But how?)

By showing a list and letting you pick one.

> 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

Sure. An importer could do whatever it sees fit.

> 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?

yes

> 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 - ?

No, it should display it. How did you "supply" ?

> 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?

red+bold is used for clinically relevant results, deliberately

> 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 (++) …

This could result in

        "17.3…(++) … <signing hand>"

meaning:

- value is 17.3
- but we cannot display the full result (because it is longer than 8 characters)
- this is too high
- there's comments
- this result isn't signed yet

Is that OK with everyone ?

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346