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Options, in particular little-used options, can soon become out-of-date.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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] please give as much
> > information as possible, in particular knowing the context is always
> > helpful.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Martyn
> >
