Quoting Camilo Polymeris <[email protected]>:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Mayeul Kauffmann
<[email protected]> wrote:
Le mercredi 27 avril 2011 à 20:46 +0200, Paolo Cavallini a écrit :
Il giorno mer, 27/04/2011 alle 12.00 -0400, Camilo Polymeris ha
scritto:
> Good point. SAGA, as far as I know, does not provide information on
> which parameters are considered basic and which are advanced. Perhaps
> a list of parameters considered advanced can be included with the
> plugin. Not very elegant, because it would be out-of-sync with SAGA,
> but practical.
It is the same approach used in GRASS: in fact, it is better (even if
not elegant, I agree) to be able to decide which options should be
exposed as default, and which ones as advanced). In fact it would be
also good to add a general option "user/power user"; in the first case
only default options will be exposed, in the second the full options.
+1 for the concept of a "user/power user" checkbox.
You could call it "Always show advanced options" which is more neutral
(does not make any judgement on the user) and describes exactly what it
does.
Agreed.
Agreed also. I like this "standard/advanced" user idea.
Would be great to have an "Advanced options" checkbox on each window
anyway, to be able to switch their visibility on a case by case basis.
If it is a check-box, tab or toggle button would have to be
considered. I am under the impression that the latter is more common,
but I don't know the rationale behind.
I'm no GUI expert so I'll let the decision to professionals.
If I understand Paolo's point right, there would be also a "config"
toggle, where the end user can configure which parameters he wants
standard, and which he wants advanced.
In addition, where relevant (functions that use command-line tools or
have command-line tools equivalent) and in advanced mode only, it would
be great to have the GUI generate the command line corresponding to the
options chosen in the GUI; the GUI would show this command line and let
the user edit it (or run it as it is). There are many advantages:
- the user knows exactly what is going to be executed; advanced QGIS
users will be able to use the GUI but benefit from existing help
targeted at the command-line users; debugging, sharing questions and
ideas in a forum or saving/automating a frequent task is facilitated
Very good idea. It could even work both ways, and use that for
saving/loading parameter "presets".
I like this also.
And what about the other way around ? So that you can open the GUI,
copy/paste a command line, then further refine the parameters with the
cool widgets of the GUI.
- you do not have to put very rare options in the GUI (power users can
still add the options here when they need it, which should be rare).
The GUI would be auto-generated, so adding parameters means no extra
programming effort. Not putting things on the GUI would, thus, be a UI
design decision, to keep it from being cluttered.
Do not agree on this one.
If it is advanced mode, let it be advanced and show everything.
It will be simpler. Otherwise the parameter model would need to have
functionnalities to tell the framework "ok, this parameter is
advanced, but still, please don't show it in GUIs".
Or you want standard/advanced/guru ?
Wow. This is getting more and more ambitious. Will have to see what
fits in only 1 summer :)
Yes you have to keep work for next summer ;)
Thanks,
Camilo
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
