Many interfaces already have an other parameters folder, see e.g. the folder "Infrequently Used Parameters" in the Molrep GUI. The request seems to be to:
a) complete this with more parameters for more programs (taking due note of Kevin's comment) b) have a Preferences switch that globally hides these folders (i.e. not just close them) for the basic GUI Provided you're happy for the advanced options to be segregated into their own folders, then we already have the means (I think) to do this. Actually going through all interfaces will take time though. Maintainability means options disappearing from programs, new options appearing, keyword arguments changing and defaults changing. For one person looking after one program with one interface, its not a problem. For 15 developers looking after 200 programs, it becomes a problem. It is "only" a management problem, but nevertheless a real issue (some people make a living out of telling you how to deal with such issues). Cheers Martyn On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 14:18 +0200, Dirk Kostrewa wrote: > Hi Martyn, > > I want to second Miguel: a switch between a "basic" GUI (could be with > even less options) and an "advanced" and "expert" GUI that allows > access to most and all options that can be used in scripts would be > absolutely great! It would allow novice users to do a good job on > "standard" problems, and gives experienced users the freedom to use any > option of a program in more difficult cases. A similar idea is > implemented in the SUSHI GUI of SHARP, where such a switch allows you to > change less or more phase refinement and improvement parameters. > > Best regards, > > Dirk. > > Miguel Ortiz Lombardia wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi Martyn, > > > > I was thinking in the "less scary" widgets-based interface for > > not-so-used options. If possible, I think that all options should be > > available to the interface. This would make the GUI more consistent, in > > a way. I know is a lot more work, but I think that this will be > > especially appreciated by people newly approaching CCP4 (students or > > not). Those of us who worked with these programs from scripts (and rtfm) > > know that there are more options than those exported to the GUI. Others > > find this situation confusing. > > > > The Expert switch in Preferences would be excellent. > > > > I'm not sure to have understood the maintainability issue... unless you > > mean that it can happen that options that become outdated disappear from > > the program, so there would be a risk of having their "ghosts" in the > > GUI. But normally programs complain when an option is not available, > > don't they? > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Miguel > > > > Martyn Winn escribió: > >> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] please give as much > >>>> information as possible, in particular knowing the context is always > >>>> helpful. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Martyn > >>>> > > > > - -- > > Miguel Ortiz Lombardía > > Centro de Investigaciones Oncológicas > > C/ Melchor Fernández Almagro, 3 > > 28029 Madrid, Spain > > Tel. +34 912 246 900 > > Fax. +34 912 246 976 > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www: http://www.pangea.org/mol/spip.php?rubrique2 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Le travail est ce que l'homme a trouvé de mieux > > pour ne rien faire de sa vie. (Raoul Vaneigem) > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFGQwV9F6oOrDvhbQIRAvgxAJ4jJXkpU4pandgQKIZJeFooO/0FtACgl+FL > > KnxYHozGPko/tOAkcxawNYI= > > =TiHW > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
