Hello Tomasz,
Thanks for your reply and consideration of my
points.
I made it quite clear that I was referring to 'industry
standard'
features that are lacking in the program in general and the
workspace in particular so it is not a fair response that you only
refer to a few particular features that are actually available in
one
'pane' of the workspace alone.
I specifically acknowledged that I was
wearing my 'new user' hat and
that my arguments were 'off the top of my
head' (it is generally
accepted in 'creative or problem solving' sessions
that it is best
not to censor the output in the intitial phase).
I
don't think you will find one single example in any post I have
made in
any forum where I have failed to back up my opening 'silly'
statements if
challenged (there are one or two exceptions where I
withdrew but that was
done to protect others, not me).
I also already conceded; 'That (my
comments are) of course ... only
a personal opinion and perhaps my views
will change as I spend more
time in the program.'
Ergonomics is a
relatively new word.
One way it is used is as a measure of 'energy
efficiency within work
processes'.
That is what I meant when I used it
and within the context of
computer programs my measure of ergonomic
efficiency is the number
of mouse clicks required to perform a set task
and also the ease
with which we can replicate that task at a later date
(from memory?)
My Office assistant is turned off and always has
been.
I stand by my comments that AB lacks ergonomics, training and
detail
in part or partss.
My Proposition:
My proposition is
that 'Microsoft like' GUI operating features are a
defacto industry
standard (sorry Mac, Linux users etc - I don't know
anything about those
systems).
My expectation of programs is that they will equal or surpass
the 'industry standard'.
Of course that is a very general statement
that can't be easily
debated without specific examples and in this case I
didn't provide
any.
All I ask, at any time, is that each suggestion is
considered on its
own merit and not 'marked' according to the status of
the poster or
the prejudices of individual forum members.
My confidence
in that area is a little down at the moment.
Re: a specific example
from within the database of existing
posts
******************************************************************
Post
#195 from the feedback center.
subject - delete old databases from file
menu
I said:
Consider selection of partial deletions for anything
than can be
separated out i.e retain data and delete categories
(broker workspace) and vice-versa, layouts?
Reason.
Easy
management of old/trial databases.
Allow removal of parts of database that
are known to be incorrect
while retaining other parts.
If database is
current or default AB will 'know' and make
announcement and/or adjustment.
You said:
REPLY by Tomasz Janeczko
status - Closed
Status -
Functionality exists
If you mean most recently used database list in
File menu - non-
existing folders ALREADY gets deleted from the
menu.
Just delete the directory using Windows explorer and next time you
run AmiBroker it won't show up in the File menu.
*******************************************************************
Admittedly
I did not explain myself very well at the feedback
center, but I did
follow up later with an email via support that
clarified and detailed my
case.
You could have also asked for further clarification at the feedback
center if you weren't sure what I meant.
What is the 'industry
standard' for file management within programs?
Go to the program file
menu and delete the old program
files/databases that the user no longer
requires.
View all of the program files/databases in a hierarchical tree
and
enact commands from there.
What is the AB
standard?
Close AB (or go out of AB?), go to Windows Explorer and
delete old
databases from there.
What specific delete features
could AB provide that MS can not be
expected to?
If the user
attempts to delete a database that is selected in AB
preferences as the
default, Windows Explorer will not delete it.
If file/delete existed in AB
the user could be given a message 'this
database can not be deleted as it
is the default. To delete this
database go to tools etc'.
The AB
database folder also contains components that have extra
relevance to the
user. The user might want to keep the symbol
lists/categories and just
delete all price data.
File/delete in AB could provide users with
appropriate delete
options to do that type of thing and also warn as to
the
consequences of each action.
The above, existing case, is a
reasonable example of the 'industry
standard'/AB gap.
At the least it
is worthy of consideration and discussion.
If I don't post any new examples
in the future it will only be
because I choose to conserve my energy
and/or that I am not entirely
comfortable in the feedback center (it is not
democratic enough for
my
liking).
Regards,
BrianB2.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com,
"Tomasz Janeczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > In my
opinion AB lacks many of the ergonomic features that have
> > become
defacto industry standards elsewhere e.g. database
> > management,
file and folder management (copy, paste, delete,
drag &
> >
drop, autobackup/recovery, right click properties, exchange
formula
> > files etc).
>
> What? Delete, drag drop, move
(rename), new file/new folder
> and all file functions are
available
> from Chart menu. TO drag-drop file from one folder to
another use
> RIGHT MOUSE BUTTON DRAG (not left - left is used for chart
overlay).
>
> > However Tomasz didn't appear to be
amenable to ergonomic
suggestions.
>
> You are here way too
short to say things like that. Newcomers are
so quick to judge.
>
> Go watch the history of the software. I have implemented tens of
thousands
> of improvements. Including 'ergonomic' ones.
> Go
to Release Notes document and see the list of improvements
> that were
just added over last 5 years (note that AB is around for
11 years)
>
> Also what is ergononic for you it is not ergonomic for somebody
else.
> For example, I hate ergonomic in the "Office Assistant"-way.
This
is kind of "ergonomic"
> is counter-productive. And I know lots
of people who think the
same.
>
> Give yourself at least ONE
YEAR of AmiBroker experience and THEN
start
> talking about
ergonomics. You will soon find that things are more
well-thought
that
> you ever dreamt about.
>
> Best regards,
>
Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "brian.z123" <brian.z123@...>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com>
>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 1:59 AM
> Subject: [amibroker] Re:
Indicator Maintenance
>
>
> > Hello John.
> >
> > Valuing the benefits of community effort, and wanting to
contribute
> > something in that area, I recently
promised/threatened Tomasz I
> > would make some suggestions through
the eyes of a new user,
while I
> > was fresh to the
program.
> > I did this mainly through the feedback centre (as
BrianB2) and
took
> > the approach of throwing the suggestions
up on a first response
> > basis without too much
censorship.
> > I was always prepared to do the hard work of
translating those
> > suggestions into researched proposals and
expanding the scope if
> > asked.
> >
> > My main
reason for coming to AB was because of it's hardcore
> > analytical
and trading features, and my opinion is that this is
it's
> >
main area of strength.
> > However most of my suggestions, as a new
user, eventually
aligned
> > themselves under three headings;
training, detailing and
ergonomics.
> > Obviously 'new users' are
not in a position to comment on the
core
> > analytical
features.
> > In my opinion AB lacks many of the ergonomic features
that have
> > become defacto industry standards elsewhere e.g.
database
> > management, file and folder management (copy, paste,
delete,
drag &
> > drop, autobackup/recovery, right
click properties, exchange
formula
> > files etc).
> >
This is particularly evident in the workspace environment.
> > I
personally find this very frustrating as manually managing
> >
maintenance duties takes a lot of energy and focus away from
system
> > design/testing and ultimately trading.
> > In view of
what is at stake I believe these features are more
> > important in
'trading' programs than they are in everyday
programs.
> >
> > However Tomasz didn't appear to be amenable to ergonomic
suggestions.
> > My understanding is that they are not aligned to
his design
> > philosophy for the program, but he might like to
comment on that
for
> > himself.
> > As a matter of
principle I do respect the right of any business
> > owner to live
and die by their own philosophies.
> > On that basis I agreed to
disagree and moved on.
> > I do think there is a danger, for AB, in
that if other programs
come
> > along that match AB's analytical
power while also offering
ergonomic
> > features, AB may notbe
able to maintain its competitive place in
the
> >
market.
> > That of course is only a personal opinion and perhaps my
views
will
> > change as I spend more time in the
program.
> > There are also a lot of ifs in that proposition.
>
>
> > Providing Tomasz does agree to a re-design of the
>
> workspace/preference setting features I would definitely help by
> > doing some homework and submitting some considered
suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts.
> >
I am generally supportive of positive and pro-active people.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > BrianB2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com,
"John R" <jr-ta@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Having just
corrupted some of my indicators yet again I thought
I
> > would
post
> >> some personal observations and suggested improvements on
AB
> > indicator
> >> maintenance. I am posting here
rather than direct to the AB
> > suggestions box
> >> to
get the POV of other users. Hopefully others may be able to
> >
offer some
> >> tips on best practice or point out the error of my
ways and
also
> > if enough
> >> users chime in we
can then compile a list of agreed suggestions
> > for TJ to
>
>> consider.
> >>
> >> OK here are my
observations:-
> >>
> >> It is *far* too easy to
corrupt indicators without even
realising
> > it. I bet
>
>> nearly everyone has done this. For those who think you have
never
> > done it
> >> try checking thru the code of all your
custom and builtin
> > indicators and see
> >> if they
contain what you expect ;-)
> >>
> >> In the early
days of AB when we only had slots for a few custom
> >
indicators
> >> (20 was it?) maintenance was not a problem. But
with large and
> > increasing
> >> numbers of indicators
I find accurate maintenance a real
problem.
> > In
>
>> addition we have systems, explorations, scans, filters and
those
> > which do
> >> combinations. Over time I have tried
various methods of file
> > suffixes,
> >> prefixes,
directories etc. to try and keep things under control
> > but
never
> >> been entirely happy with it. My feeling is there must
be a
better
> > more
> >> organised solution with
maybe separate directories for these
> > specified via
>
>> Preferences.
> >>
> >> One of the big
problems I have is indicators getting out of
sync
> > with
the
> >> corresponding .afl file on disk. For example it is very
easy to
> > make an
> >> amendment to an indicator while
testing visually via
charts/guru
> > commentary
> >>
and forget to save to the correct afl file on disk. Later when
I
>
> come to
> >> system test and copy/paste the code into test
afl from disk I
get
> > unexpected
> >> results. BTW
I am sure the endless copy/edit/paste operations
will
> >
eventally
> >> drive me to complete baldness - my background is in
commericial
IT
> > systems
> >> development so it
goes very much against the grain when you
cannot
> > define
a
> >> formula/module just once and then just refrence it wherever
> > required. TJ
> >> has said he will add this facility
but will I have any hair
left
> > by then ;^)
> >>
> >>
> >> Suggested improvements:-
>
>>
> >> In IB add a Copy button to enable a new version of
an indictaor
to
> > be
> >> created quickly. Default
new name = old name with numeric
suffice
> > e.g.
>
>> HolyGrail[2]
> >>
> >> In indicator browse
list add columns for date and time last
> > modified. Allow
>
>> sorting on name column or date and time. At present you cannot
> > check dates
> >> or easily determine which
indciators you were last working on.
> >>
> >> In
indicator browse list add columns for In quick list, Uses
> >
builtin code,
> >> Use formula only. At present you must
laboriously click down
thru
> > every list
> >> item
to determine these.
> >>
> >> Provide some protection
or warning to prevent unintentional
> > overwriting when
>
>> using Load.
> >>
> >> IMO indicators should
be directly related by filename to the
> > corresponding
>
>> disk file. For example the indicator HolyGrail7 is defined via
the
> > disk file
> >> HolyGrail7.afl Ideally AB
preferences would specify the
directory
> > name(s)
>
>> for custom and standard indicators. This would prevent many
>
> maintenance
> >> problems that the current architecture
invites and would also
> > facilitate
> >> many other
maintance operations (see below).
> >>
> >> Facility
to bulk load indicators from disk files into AB. i.e.
> > browse
and
> >> select multiple .afl disk files which are then loaded
into
> > corresponding
> >> custom or builtin indicator
names.
> >>
> >> Facility to bulk copy indicators
from AB to disk files i.e.
> > browse and
> >> select
multiple AB indictors which are then copied to selected
> >
windows
> >> directory.
> >>
> >> Allow
the default directories for custom and bulitin indicators
to
> >
be
> >> specified via Preferences. Maybe also systems,
explorations,
> > scans....?
> >>
> >>
> >> All POVs welcome.
> >>
> >>
John
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that this group is for
discussion between users only.
> >
> > To get support from
AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
> > SUPPORT {at}
amibroker.com
> >
> > For other support material please
check also:
> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
>
>
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
