Hi,
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:44:09 +0200
meik michalke meik.micha...@uni-duesseldorf.de wrote:
Am Montag, 6. Oktober 2014, 20:28:45 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
- Providing better control over which plugins are active. I'm still
not convinced, the level of individual plugins is (typically)
Hi,
On Saturday 11 October 2014 21:35:54 meik michalke wrote:
that exactly is the plan. for re-use of the ID later on (e.g., in the logic
section), you should also store it in an object:
list (
First option=c (val=1),
Second option=c (val=2, chk=TRUE),
option3 -
hi,
Am Montag, 6. Oktober 2014, 20:28:45 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
- Providing better control over which plugins are active. I'm still not
convinced, the level of individual plugins is (typically) the right
granularity of control, but in fact, control should be more fine-grained
than
Hi,
On Tuesday 14 October 2014 12:44:09 meik michalke wrote:
Am Montag, 6. Oktober 2014, 20:28:45 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
- Providing better control over which plugins are active. I'm still not
convinced, the level of individual plugins is (typically) the right
granularity of
Hi Meik,
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:49:56 meik michalke wrote:
Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2014, 13:43:33 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
- For the two sample tests, when estimating the size of one of the
samples,
why not always make it the second sample (i.e. first sample size
hi,
Am Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014, 14:46:39 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
Well, when I wanted to make that experiment, I found that rkwarddev does
not yet handle ids on radio-options. And then I found out, that the fact
that radio-options can be disabled, dynamically, was not really
On Saturday 11 October 2014 16:56:39 meik michalke wrote:
well, in fact there is no rk.XML.option() yet ;-) all options are directly
defined by rk.XML.radio() as a list. but if one needs the possibility of
getting an ID from an option, adding rk.XML.option() seems to be inevitable.
i don't se
Hi again,
On Saturday 11 October 2014 17:44:33 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
Thus, perhaps, naming an id manually, is the way to go.
I.e rk.XML.radio() could accept options like this:
ok, I was too slow...
Well, perhaps if you can make it so that rk.XML.radio() can accept a mixed
list like
hi there,
Am Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014, 17:50:57 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
On Saturday 11 October 2014 17:44:33 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
Thus, perhaps, naming an id manually, is the way to go.
I.e rk.XML.radio() could accept options like this:
ok, I was too slow...
sorry ;-)
hi thomas,
Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2014, 13:43:33 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
- For the two sample tests, when estimating the size of one of the samples,
why not always make it the second sample (i.e. first sample size provided)?
fixed (in the script).
- Syntax error for estimating
Hi,
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 11:49:56 meik michalke wrote:
- For GLM, would it make sense to allow to specify number of parameters
to
estimate, and sample size (N), instead of numerator / denominator df?
i went for the wording used by ?pwr.f2.test, but i admit it sounds a bit
scary
Hi Meik,
On Sunday 05 October 2014 16:01:27 meik michalke wrote:
sure, why not. would someone jump in to do write the help file? ;-)
trying to write a help file sometimes helps to spot non-intuitive controls, or
ones that could be simplified. Oh, and of course bugs...:
- For the two sample
Hi,
On Sunday 05 October 2014 16:01:27 meik michalke wrote:
That might even help work around the squeezing you get when switching from
single sample to two samples (depending on dialog height).
that's still an annoying bug, isn't it? by the way, while working on this i
came to notice that
hi,
Am Samstag, 4. Oktober 2014, 12:08:49 schrieb meik michalke:
Am Samstag, 4. Oktober 2014, 10:34:58 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
- Don't forget to require(pwr)
fixed.
I figured out that for less you want to specify a _negative_ effect size
(and in fact, you can't enter that in the
Hi,
On Sunday 05 October 2014 12:00:05 meik michalke wrote:
i also fixed the sample size controls for two sample designs, and added the
possibility to provide eta squared instead of cohen's f.
a thought on that: For two samples, you could hide the number of observations
_per sample_ note.
hi,
Am Sonntag, 5. Oktober 2014, 14:49:40 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
On Sunday 05 October 2014 12:00:05 meik michalke wrote:
i also fixed the sample size controls for two sample designs, and added
the
possibility to provide eta squared instead of cohen's f.
a thought on that: For
hi thomas,
Am Samstag, 4. Oktober 2014, 10:34:58 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
looks really nice, already.
thanks :-)
- Don't forget to require(pwr)
ouch...
- I was rather confused by the distinction between greater and less
alternatives for one-sided tests.
erm, yes, me too. only as a
17 matches
Mail list logo
