On 20 Apr 2007, at 23:27, Stephen Boulet wrote: > Hi bsag, > > Here's my two cents (two p? ;).
More like 1p with the great for us/bad for you exchange rate :-D > In the GUI (that is, on the project page), the dependent actions > could be in a dependent actions section, just like the tickler > actions are in their own section. That might work, but then you'd have to indicate which action it was dependent on (unless you just showed that in brackets after the description). Could get a little confusing, because there's a spatial disconnect between the two. One thing I thought of was indenting and greying out the dependent child action under its parent, which would graphically show which the parent was and also indicate that it was inactive in some way. The obvious way to set dependence would be by dragging a child onto a parent, but that might get tricky. > I would, for simplicity's sake, only let a next action be dependent > on one and only one other next action. Each action then could have > only one parent and one child. > > One could choose to have a dependency chain, to use the tickler, or > to avoid dependencies altogether. It's hard to know what to do to balance complexity and utility here: I feel that one parent-one child might be a bit restrictive (unless you allow nesting within, i.e. the child has a child, which has a child, etc.), but anything more complicated gets a bit hairy. Hum. cheers, bsag -- but she's a girl - the weblog of a female geek http://www.rousette.org.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Tracks-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss
