On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:22:03PM -0800, James Busser wrote: > My fault... btw earlier when I pointed out that staff were not patients, I > was not complaining about the paradigm, I was just making a case to remove > the word "Patient" since it is implied even without the word. More-helpful > words would identify the context of the name that is showing, words like > "Search" versus 'Found" (or "Current") Actually, all of them are implied. "Patient" seems the only universally applicable label.
Search ... patient Found ... patient Current ... patient And, yes, "patient" is implied as opposed to "person" since when a person has been activated with our current client its only intent can be to use it as a patient. (well, almost, select person/enlist as staff is the single non-clinical pathway). > The confusing part, and the risk for error, is when there is name text on > the screen that does not belong to the patient. This confusion should be very limited now as it switches back to the current patient as soon as the search box loses focus. I now include the latest search fragment into the displayed name of the active patient as seen in the attached screenshot. > I think it would be really helpful, once any person / patient is found, to > *flush* the text from the search box display and instead place, and in the > *grey* area that lies immediately below the search box / caveats, but > *above* the widgets, display the patient name and some additional details > that are useful to keep visible so you do not always have to go back and > forth to the Patient details tab to things like date of birth, sex etc. --- Those additional details should indeed find their way into the top area but I would not spend the screen real estate for both a search box and the name display. > I don;t even really think that "Found" is needed... the patient (person) > name could be positioned right next to the (place provided for the) photo I agree but there is a thread from a couple years back arguing otherwise. It must be in the archives somewhere. > Visually it would look nice to, only it points out that to repeat the name > inside the top "handle" of the EMR tree seems a little redundant. It might > help a little to rename that "EMR tree of ..." but only if you think it is > essential to keep the name in this handle... Personally I believe it's worth the nice touch. And it doesn't use any space we could otherwise use. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
<<attachment: gnumed-screenshot-2008-01-21_00-06-01.png>>
_______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
