On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 14:41, Jon Lapham wrote:
> I think it would be cleaner if instead we presented the GnuCash
> recommended way first, and then compared it to other methods later (the
> compoarison of accounts and categories). Heck, maybe a separate
> chapter. It seems a bit less convoluted that way... to me.
>
> Basically, this would just mean inverting the order of section 3.1 and
> 3.2 and changing the introduction a little.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Do we really want to push the idea that it is *possible* to set GnuCash
> up "the quicken way" with 2 main categories, income and expenses? Since
> the reports heavily depend on the main 5 account types being present...
My thoughts? Do it whatever way makes sense to you. If you think the
above works better go for it!
Personally I don't feel we should push 'the quicken way' at all but
rather try to help users discover how much more flexible it is to use
the 5 main types.
Chris
--
RedHat Certified Engineer #807302549405490.
Checkpoint Certified Security Expert 2000 & NG
--------------------------------------------
|^|
| | |^|
| |^| | | Life out here is raw
| | |^| | But we will never stop
| |_|_| | We will never quit
| / __> | cause we are Metallica
|/ / |
\ /
| |
--------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
