bug-gnu-pspp
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

PSPP-BUG: Re: [bug #30008] Aggregate data


From: Fredrik Clementz
Subject: PSPP-BUG: Re: [bug #30008] Aggregate data
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 09:28:02 +0200

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:49 PM, John Darrington <address@hidden> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 08:43:06AM +0200, Fredrik Clementz wrote:

    Some feedback on the aggregate command! It seems most stuff is in place.
    Uncertain if you aim for a practical look or a cloned look or your own look.

A practical look is of primary concern.  We try to follow the Gnome
"Human Interface Guildlines" http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/nightly/
However since many of our users are familiar with the SPSS interface, sometimes
we depart from the HIG when we think it'll make those users too confused.


    1. The default size of the variable listbox (at least in windows) is way too
    small. It is so narrow that the first thing that has to be done to work with
    this window is expanding it in width. Therefor may I suggest that it should
    be wider as default so that one doesn't have to expand it every time?
    Possibly making the entire window just a little big bigger as well.

I pushed a fix setting the panel to 50% of its maximum size.

Won't be able to see this one until later on, but I would imagine it looks better now.
 
    2. THe most common function I use aggregate for is simply looking for
    "duplicates" or similar. Now how this is done is simply using a number of
    variables that I push in as break variables. THen I usually tick in "Number
    of cases" and run it. However, in PSPP, there is no "Number of cases box"
    and just adding the variables to break won't allow me to press ok.  I
    believe this is the most common use of this function which is likely why
    SPSS added this quick tickbox instead of fiddling around with the more
    daring "functions" that more experienced users deal with (Ehrm, not to
    mention more experienced tend to fall to Syntax mode). I would suggest
    relooking how this is done to not make it differ from SPSS to much as I
    really believe there approoach is better than ours at the moment.

What does the "number of cases" checkbox do?  What syntax does it produce?

A picture says more than a thousand words. Note! The attached is default behavior when I simply tick in the "number of cases" box
 
    3. If we'd really like to go a bit beyond SPSS which I personally would
    enjoy, one of the functions I would appreciate is to add the function
    "random". So when aggregating a dataset and there are 2 similar cases, how
    about choosing a random value from these. Would be really useful.

I suppose it's possible.  If this is really important to you, please raise it
as a wishlist bug. Make sure you give a detailed description of how it would work.
(Eg, what constitutes a "similar" case).

I'll keep that in mind and try to remember to file this report later on. Frankly though, there are numerous other things which are a lot higher on my wishlist so I might spare you of it.

    4. Assuming we'll keep the way functions are added now (I really see the
    benefit of efficiency not having popups over popups), may I suggest doing a
    similar grouping of options witha  header as done in SPSS. Like -Summary- or
    -Specific- Etc.... Food for thought, this one is discussable I agree.

That's certainly possible.  A treeview could replace the combobox and then all
the items could be collapsed or expanded as desired.

Treeview would be a very good way of doing it. I suppose the reason why SPSS did it the way it did was because of the percentages etc where additional info is needed.

    5. I note that we have "replace the current dataset with the aggregated
    variables" while SPSS has "create a new dataset containing only the
    aggregated variables" with the option of giving it a name. Now I would
    believe that these 2 are similar? Just that our current name implies
    removing the current dataset in favour of the aggregated. Think some
    clarification would be nice.


Currently, PSPP doesn't support multiple datasets.  So the current wording
is correct.  When (if?) we implement multiple datasets, then a small adjustment
to the interface will be appropriate.'

Ahh, I suppose multi datasets on the wishlist then ;P
 

J'

--
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMXYCgimdxnC3oJ7MRAnEmAJ0SZbFV/nZjor0VKEM04WW8zwYxoQCeLZE4
ipahQC41VJXHnOZAUEcptgQ=
=4Jjk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




--
Fredrik Clementz

Reflect AB
Bryggargatan 6a
111 21 Stockholm

Direkt: 08 - 412 26 94
Fax: 0708 - 27 79 37
Mobil: 0709 - 99 52 36

E-mail: address@hidden
Url: www.reflect.se

Om Reflect
Reflect är ett undersökningsföretag specialiserat på kvantitativa undersökningar. Med undersökningar som verktyg lär vi företag att förstå sina marknader, sin organisation och omvärld. Undersökningarna som genomförs tillsammans med Reflect avser fungera som en språngbräda inför framtiden. Vi levererar beslutsunderlag som snabbt skall kunna användas för att öka utväxlingen i företag och organisationer

Attachment: Aggregate.PNG
Description: PNG image

Attachment: aggregate summaries.PNG
Description: PNG image


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]