Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 09:08 +0800, Marco Moebus wrote: > > >I'll think about making the Notes field searchable - a bit > afraid of > >searching too many fields as this may result in getting too > many hits > >when searching, but I'll see how it works out. > > Maybe a radio button in the search dialogue, "Search Notes > field" or "Search all fields"? > > A bit more complicated to handle, but also nice, would be the > possibility to search by regular expression or similar. Implementing this would be trivial. I'll consider making searches always support regular expressions unless they cause problems for people who don't know how they work (if it's likely that it will reduce search hits by parsing commonly used characters as constraints). > Besides, IMHO, getting too many search results might be more a problem > of searching for inspecific keywords. I think, being able to search > ALL fields is much more important than protecting the user from too > many search results, since in that case, she has simply to reconsider > her search keywords. Yeah, I guess you're right - I'll make it search all fields in 0.5.0. -- Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikg.codepoet.no/ "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
>I'll think about making the Notes field searchable - a bit afraid of>searching too many fields as this may result in getting too many hits >when searching, but I'll see how it works out.>>Maybe a radio button in the search dialogue, "Search Notes field" or"Search all fields"? A bit more complicated to handle, but also nice, would be the possibility to search by regular _expression_ or similar. Besides, IMHO, getting too many search results might be more a problem of searching for inspecific keywords. I think, being able to search ALL fields is much more important than protecting the user from too many search results, since in that case, she has simply to reconsider her search keywords. Cheers Marco
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
Erik Grinaker wrote: I'll think about making the Notes field searchable - a bit afraid of searching too many fields as this may result in getting too many hits when searching, but I'll see how it works out. Maybe a radio button in the search dialogue, "Search Notes field" or "Search all fields"? Tony
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 08:45 +1100, Tony and Robyn Lewis wrote: > Erik Grinaker wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 13:25 +1100, Tony and Robyn Lewis wrote: > > > Also, how about a bank account record? All countries will be different, > > > but you should be able to define one that handles +95% of cases, > > > hopefully? Maybe the fields could be: > > > * Name > > > * Account name > > > * Branch (string, could be branch name, or a numeric code, SORT code > > > (UK), BSB (Aus)) > > > * Account (numeric account number, or string if needed) > > > * Password? > > > > > > > Ho hum, not so sure about this. I've had other requests for this as > > well, but I don't really see why this should be stored in Revelation. > > The data isn't exactly secret (it's public data in Norway, at least), > > and I'm sure you'll get a nice overview of your accounts in your banks > > web-interface anyways? > > > > :-) I accept this (I remember it being raised before - might have been > by me even). But I'm getting back to my leaning towards Revelation > being my de facto PIM (PIM != calendar or email in this context). > I've got tax file numbers and medicare numbers (Aus), and it suits me > well for this purpose. > > If the Notes field is there, and it's searchable, then that's gonna be > good enough. Yeah, it might be worth considering making Revelation more of a PIM, but for now I'll keep the focus on making it a password manager. Shouldn't be anything stopping you from using it as a PIM anyways, but making it a real PIM would obviously require a rethink of the user interface and functionality. I'll think about making the Notes field searchable - a bit afraid of searching too many fields as this may result in getting too many hits when searching, but I'll see how it works out. -- Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikg.codepoet.no/ "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
Erik Grinaker wrote: On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 13:25 +1100, Tony and Robyn Lewis wrote: Also, how about a bank account record? All countries will be different, but you should be able to define one that handles +95% of cases, hopefully? Maybe the fields could be: * Name * Account name * Branch (string, could be branch name, or a numeric code, SORT code (UK), BSB (Aus)) * Account (numeric account number, or string if needed) * Password? Ho hum, not so sure about this. I've had other requests for this as well, but I don't really see why this should be stored in Revelation. The data isn't exactly secret (it's public data in Norway, at least), and I'm sure you'll get a nice overview of your accounts in your banks web-interface anyways? :-) I accept this (I remember it being raised before - might have been by me even). But I'm getting back to my leaning towards Revelation being my de facto PIM (PIM != calendar or email in this context). I've got tax file numbers and medicare numbers (Aus), and it suits me well for this purpose. If the Notes field is there, and it's searchable, then that's gonna be good enough. Tony
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 13:25 +1100, Tony and Robyn Lewis wrote: > Erik Grinaker wrote: > >I've drafted a quick list of the default account types for Revelation > >0.5.0, but would like to get some feedback on it. So if you think I'm > >missing an important (ie widely used) account type, there's too few or > >too many fields in some of the accounts, or anything else, please let me > >know. > > The most common field I want to store in Revelation, but can't (without > overloading the Hostname field, say), is a reminder question / answer. > E.g. What is your favourite colour. Ok. I'm not sure this is common enough to to have a field for it by default, maybe it would be better solved by adding a custom field when it's needed or something. Haven't decided yet, though, so I'll consider it - but it seems like it's needed only on a handful of web-sites. > Then there are things I've wanted to do once or twice. Custom fields > would deal with this nicely: > * customer number (when different from, say, account number) > * a URL in relation to *anything* - e.g. a shell account has a URL that > has help on it Yeah, custom fields would probably be the best way to solve these. > Also, how about a bank account record? All countries will be different, > but you should be able to define one that handles +95% of cases, > hopefully? Maybe the fields could be: > * Name > * Account name > * Branch (string, could be branch name, or a numeric code, SORT code > (UK), BSB (Aus)) > * Account (numeric account number, or string if needed) > * Password? Ho hum, not so sure about this. I've had other requests for this as well, but I don't really see why this should be stored in Revelation. The data isn't exactly secret (it's public data in Norway, at least), and I'm sure you'll get a nice overview of your accounts in your banks web-interface anyways? -- Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikg.codepoet.no/ "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:40 +0800, Marco Moebus wrote: > maybe I miss some point here, but I wonder why there is no possibility > to take some notes for each account, e.g. a field that is displayed as > a small text box where the user can put more text than a short > desciption. For example, users might want to store transaction numbers > or other lists where it could be inconvenient to restrict the field to > 256 characters (at least the inserting/display/editing in a single > line field becomes a bit cumbersomely for longer texts). Yeah, in 0.5.0 accounts get a new field for storing long notes like this. > You mentioned that it will be possible to create custom fields, I hope > this still holds true, although it's not yet mentioned in the draft. > So maybe it would be a good idea to be able to define not only the > type of informatino, but also length and style of display (i.e. > something like short field, long field, list, text box). Yep, I've planned support for letting you define the entry type for custom fields, but I haven't worked out all the details yet. I'll post a preview once I have something ready. -- Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikg.codepoet.no/ "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
Erik Grinaker wrote: Hi all, I've drafted a quick list of the default account types for Revelation 0.5.0, but would like to get some feedback on it. So if you think I'm missing an important (ie widely used) account type, there's too few or too many fields in some of the accounts, or anything else, please let me know. Erik, The most common field I want to store in Revelation, but can't (without overloading the Hostname field, say), is a reminder question / answer. E.g. What is your favourite colour. Then there are things I've wanted to do once or twice. Custom fields would deal with this nicely: * customer number (when different from, say, account number) * a URL in relation to *anything* - e.g. a shell account has a URL that has help on it Also, how about a bank account record? All countries will be different, but you should be able to define one that handles +95% of cases, hopefully? Maybe the fields could be: * Name * Account name * Branch (string, could be branch name, or a numeric code, SORT code (UK), BSB (Aus)) * Account (numeric account number, or string if needed) * Password? Tony
Re: [rvl-list] RFC: default account types
Hi Erik, maybe I miss some point here, but I wonder why there is no possibility to take some notes for each account, e.g. a field that is displayed as a small text box where the user can put more text than a short desciption. For example, users might want to store transaction numbers or other lists where it could be inconvenient to restrict the field to 256 characters (at least the inserting/display/editing in a single line field becomes a bit cumbersomely for longer texts). You mentioned that it will be possible to create custom fields, I hope this still holds true, although it's not yet mentioned in the draft. So maybe it would be a good idea to be able to define not only the type of informatino, but also length and style of display (i.e. something like short field, long field, list, text box). Thanks for all your effort on relevation! Marco 2006/2/15, Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi all,I've drafted a quick list of the default account types for Revelation0.5.0, but would like to get some feedback on it. So if you think I'mmissing an important (ie widely used) account type, there's too few or too many fields in some of the accounts, or anything else, please let meknow. The list can be found here: http://oss.codepoet.no/revelation/file-spec/current/xhtml/accounttypes.html Revelation 0.5.0 will also allow users to set up their own accounttypes, as well as modify the default ones, but some of the detailshaven't been worked out yet. But I still think it's important that Revelation has a good set of account types by default.Any feedback on the rest of the (incomplete) spec is also welcome, thefull spec is available here: http://oss.codepoet.no/revelation/file-spec/current/xhtml/--Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://erikg.codepoet.no/ "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements oflife, when all that we need to make us happy is something to beenthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein
[rvl-list] RFC: default account types
Hi all, I've drafted a quick list of the default account types for Revelation 0.5.0, but would like to get some feedback on it. So if you think I'm missing an important (ie widely used) account type, there's too few or too many fields in some of the accounts, or anything else, please let me know. The list can be found here: http://oss.codepoet.no/revelation/file-spec/current/xhtml/accounttypes.html Revelation 0.5.0 will also allow users to set up their own account types, as well as modify the default ones, but some of the details haven't been worked out yet. But I still think it's important that Revelation has a good set of account types by default. Any feedback on the rest of the (incomplete) spec is also welcome, the full spec is available here: http://oss.codepoet.no/revelation/file-spec/current/xhtml/ -- Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikg.codepoet.no/ "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." -- Albert Einstein
