Hi Martyn:

I never use the GUI and it scares me, so I probably should just STFU, but
that sort of thing has never kept me from pontificating. I often get 
emails from people asking how to do something with the GUI and they don't
believe me, because I've developed a reputation as something of a Mac OS X
shill.  The Mac OS X GUI (and newer Linux desktops like Xfce) are nice 
because they are unobtrusive.  The CCP4 GUI, at least back when I decided 
to try it, seemed to always fight me and try to make me do stuff I don't 
want to do, and I already have a wife.

The worst GUI I have seen is the one with Phenix.  Which is odd, because 
it has the best command-line experience. I think the file parsing and IO 
is part of the open-source portion of the project (CCTBX) and since that 
is already an optional distribution with CCP4, may I humbly suggest 
tighter integration with the existing CCP4 suit?  

If that happens, a parsing editor for the def file is really all you would 
probably need for a GUI.


Bill





On Thu, 10 May 2007, Martyn Winn wrote:

     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     Options, in particular little-used options, can soon become out-of-date.
     
     m
     
     
     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 ;-)
     > 
     > Cheers,
     > 
     > 
     > Miguel
     > 
     > 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
     > >