[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:28:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 06:20:08PM -0700, James Busser wrote:
> On 31-Mar-08, at 1:28 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>> For reviewed one could use a checkmark character. For
>> unreviewed one could use a crossed out checkmark. I haven't
>> found a single unicode codepoint with a crossed out
>> checkmark. So I figured to show a writing (signing) hand for
>> those results that need signing. Other candidates would be:
>>
>> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2300/index.htm
>> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/237B/index.htm
>
> I am not keen on Unicode 2300 (the first of these inks) as it is a null
> sign...
Well, it'd communicate "something's missing" (but not what
IS missing).
> I actually kind of like the second one, which is a
>
> NOT CHECK MARK
Unfortunately, few fonts support it.
> ... IMO the above might be less ambiguous than the current signing hand,
> as the latter ambiguates
>
> sign this
> this has been signed
> write or attach a note or issue a communication
True enough. Likely any sign will be ambigous.
> If you want to generate a screenshot of what "NOT CHECK MARK" would look
> like in a small grid, I could show both to a few clinical colleagues and
> report back their reactions :-)
My standard font doesn't have it so that's out :-(
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling, Karsten Hilbert, 2008/04/02
Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling, Karsten Hilbert, 2008/04/02
Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling, Karsten Hilbert, 2008/04/02
Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling,
Karsten Hilbert <=