Re: [lmi] InputSequence questions

[Greg Chicares]

On 2010-04-15 12:10Z, Vaclav Slavik wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 16:06 +0000, Greg Chicares wrote:
>> We could consider this for the '# years' case, though:
>> - [78] from retirement            [for # years     ] [10], then
>> + [78] from retirement            [for a period of ] [10] years, then
>> Do you like that? 
> 
> Yes, I think it works well:
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1978132/seq_entry_demo-v4.7z

Yes, that looks very good.

The only thing I can see that end users might wonder about is that we
offer "Remove" but not "Add". We've discussed that already, so maybe
the only action required is to construct a reasonable explanation.

If anyone asks, I think I'd respond by asking what the "until" field
should contain for an inserted row. If we knew an excellent answer to
that question, then we'd probably provide an "Add" button. But IIRC
we concluded that there's no really good answer. Probably the best is:
  for a period of 0 years
but zero-year intervals are potentially confusing because they have
no effect. We don't forbid you to construct such an interval yourself,
or remove it automatically if you do, but we aren't going to offer a
pushbutton for creating an empty interval. If a pushbutton is present,
then users will click it; and then if they don't know what to do next,
that's a shortcoming of the GUI.

Is that a reasonable explanation to give users? Is there a better one?
It's not that an insertion capability would have no value, and we're
more or less telling them that if they need to insert a row, they have
to press Cancel and start over.