As somebody already thought about an user-personalized interface, eg. a CCP4
menu where people could drag & drop their favorite (or mostly used)
De : CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Martyn
Envoyé : jeudi, 10. mai 2007 13:05
À : [log in to unmask]
Objet : Re: [ccp4bb] CCP4 GUI
This is timely. We're in the process of a) trying to organise a major
effort to tidy up the existing ccp4i classic (rather than fire-fighting
problems), and b) thinking about designing the next generation. Not sure
which this is. Option b) would be a project over several years.
Can you elucidate further. As an expert user, would you want a less
scary free text box (which is essentially what Run&View Com File is), or
actual widgets for every option. The latter could be done as a hidden
folder, made visible according to an Expert switch in Preferences.
As developers, we also have to think about long-term maintainability.
Options, in particular little-used options, can soon become out-of-date.
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 12:41 +0200, Miguel Ortiz Lombardia wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Dear all,
> I'm a well-known luddite as Eleanor says. However, I shamelessly confess
> that the CCP4 GUI is great. Not that I think this is necessary here, I'm
> sure most people agree with that.
> If I write now is because Martynn's e-mail have reminded me of something
> I thought once, but forgot to ask for to the ccp4i developpers: perhaps
> the GUI could have "two faces/modes", a basic one and an expert/advanced
> one. I understand that they already exist, but the "expert" one is
> hidden under the "Run&View Com File", while I'm thinking on a real
> expert GUI-mode. Users should be able to choose one or the other in
> their defaults, or switch from one to the other on-the-fly.
> I don't have a particular problem in editing the scripts as it is done
> now, but I have found that students tend to get a bit nervous about
> doing it themselves ;-)
> Martyn Winn escribió:
> > The level of detail in the GUI is a matter of constant debate. The
> > underlying programs are far far richer, so the question is how much to
> > expose in the GUI. We try to get a balance between ease-of-use and
> > coverage, but it won't always work. BTW I don't think we ever claimed
> > that ccp4i (or anything else in ccp4) is "finished" ;-)
> > Having said that, we're always happy to hear about specific defects in
> > the GUI. When reporting these to [log in to unmask] please give as much
> > information as possible, in particular knowing the context is always
> > helpful.
> > Cheers
> > Martyn