Re: [lmi] InputSequence questions

[Vaclav Slavik]

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:45 +0000, Greg Chicares wrote:
> 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. 

...or change "until" on one row and update subsequent rows accordingly.

"Inserting a row" is really "split an interval into two", is that
something your users commonly need to do? This UI assumes that this
isn't common (when it is needed, it is doable, but not conveniently) and
that the two most likely modes of entry are:

 1. Enter a new sequence from scratch; that's what the UI works
    best for.

 2. Change some details: amounts, numeric parameters of end points,
    perhaps end point type; but keep the overall structure of the
    sequence the same.

Note that 2. assumes you won't need to remove rows either, but it would
be impossible to correct mistakes or do full editing without Remove
buttons (unlike Add ones), so they have to stay. Or, we could replace
(or amend) them with a Clear button in the bottom buttons area.

Finally, he are two ideas on how we could implement Insert, should we
choose to:

 a. Split the row into two at some fixed point. E.g.: make the first
    subinterval one year long, or make the second subinterval one year
    long, or split in half.

 b. Show a small entry window and ask the user where to split.

I like b. better -- the user will almost always need to correct the
default split in a. anyway, so why not ask up-front.

Anyway, the more important question is whether my assumptions are wrong.
IMHO we don't need Insert buttons unless they are.

Regards,
Vaclav