> Adam R. B. Jack wrote: > > I'm sold on this approach. > > for good reference, I'm not :-D. I am not a UI expert in any way, but > I'm trying to learn a little atm. I'm game for trying stuff ;)
I think I'm at a point where I want to step back, and see the big picture. I am *finally* tinkering with my first fun contribution to Gump, and I've been down in the bowels way too long. I want to step back, to re-evaluate, and I like this as a way to get a fresh perspective. > alas, Adam, just go write up that imaginary user instead of fixing that > bug! I found its real difficult, since gump already has real users and > you don't want to make any of those feel stereotyped :-D I don't see why not. Better that, than not directly considered. We've discuss Gumpmeisters, but where is the Gumpmeister view verses the normal human view? We don't have a separation, and the current output is a cluster 'cos of that. My thought is that this can't harm. Anyway, I'm going to be playing with DependencyDiagram for a while. Re-inventing wheels (no doubt) but having fun. So, tinkering with implementation not being visionary. :) regards, Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
