But I find it confusing that the "[...] Applies to sub-items" would word only in certain hierarchical cases, as this is not explicit/explained anywhere, I think. Or did I miss something ?
The source and filters define the items that "belong" to a grid
If context parents is checked, the immediate main parent is added (this will be improved to show grand parents, etc )
If hierarchy is checked, items are grouped under their parent, otherwise each item is listed according to the sort order
If full hierarchy is checked, all sub-items are removed and top level items are repopulated with their sub-items
If save item state is checked, previous item expansion is restored
In IQ, there is not such a thing as a main item, a sub-item. All items are items. Period. Like you, as a person. You may be shown as a sub-item of your parents, but you're a full-fledge item...
Applies to sub-item means: Applies to sub-items of items that belong to the grid (re source, etc, unless full-hierarchy is checked).
The idea behind IQ, is flexible display, hence the numerous possibilities. Believe me, I use all display settings, depending on what kind of info is displayed in the grid.
I'm all for flexibility. But everything should be as explicit as possible. What you're explaining is not made very explicit in the interface, IMO.
For me the number 1 goal for IQ should now be : intuitiveness, ease of use, explicitness. Quite a challenge. I don't think I'm the most ignorant user here, BUT I still struggle with filters and many other things, from time to time. Is my IQ to low to use IQ?
I'm also starting to feel that maybe I shouldn't question some functions and features or I'll get some more explanations on what is IQ and the philosophy behind IQ, etc. (I think I shall know enough about IQ's functioning and philosophy by now...), instead of an acknowledgement that maybe something is not very user friendly or not explicit enough or whatever ? (Same things for some issues that I consider to be bugs...)
I don't want to get into rethorical debates. I just hate it.
> "In IQ, there is not such a thing as a main item, a sub-item. All items are items. Period. Like you, as a person. You may be shown as a sub-item of your parents, but you're a full-fledge item..."
I think I understand that a sub-item is an item... Did I say anywhere that sub-items were not real items ?? Aren't we allowed to add adjectives to qualify certain items or is there a rule against that...? Let's not forget here that human language and mind works a lot by using metaphors -- so let's be a bit forgiving here... Thanks.
Now, if "Applies to sub-items" means: "Applies to sub-items of items [sic] that "belong" [sic] to the grid -- meaning that they meat the source -- unless full-hierarchy is checked", then maybe this is how the option should be called... I know it sounds stupid... But how is a user supposed to know that ? And remember it at all time ?
>But everything should be as explicit as possible. What you're explaining is not made very explicit in the interface
What you say is certainly true.
>I'm also starting to feel that maybe I shouldn't question some functions and features.
Please do question. If I wrote how grids were populated, it is because I believe that it isn't well explained in the documentation and it could help users
>instead of an acknowledgement that maybe something is not very user friendly or not explicit enough or whatever
I acknowledge (and have done so in the past too) that some aspects are not user friendly.
>I think I understand that a sub-item is an item...
I know you do, but you also wrote: "Isn't a sub-item always a sub-item ?" and the answer to this is clearly: NO. A sub-item is not always a sub-item:
If the parent is not shown, the sub-item is not shown and handled as a sub-item,
Since parents can be added and (in this example) removed, an item may one day have a parent, and the next have none. It will be handled the same way, in either cases.
> [...] but you also wrote: "Isn't a sub-item always a sub-item ?" and the answer to this is clearly: NO.
you didn't understand what I was trying to say... mostly because I wasn't clear enough.
I should've said : "Isn't a sub-item displayed as a sub-item always an item displayed as a sub-item ?. The answer is yes, IMO (if not, then there's something pretty zenlike about IQ...). The thing is, there are different types of sub-items (and this is not explicit in the grid : all sub-items appear to be exactly the same, regardless) : those who meet the source, and those who don't, and that makes things fairely complicated for the user as the different parameters and functions interact.
>all sub-items appear to be exactly the same, regardless) : those who meet the source, and those who don't
Excellent point. All items that don't meet the criteria could be displayed in a different color (or some other attribute) (as a grid option), whether they are there as:
Perhaps this kind of thing could be helped by symbols rather than colors, etc. Like you, I already use colors for many things as it helps to punch up some items in a long list. The question is what do I mean by symbols & where would they be placed. The question of what symbols, be it a flag or an asterisk is open while the where would have to be somewhere obvious like to the left of any such item. Maybe this would serve as a starting point. It is clear to me that altho an item may be an item anywhere within IQ, i.e. that it is IQ's basic building block, it is also clear to me that what happens to that item, i.e. how it is used is just as unclear. I don't know whether to put a smiley face at the end of that last sentence or not but I agree w Armando that it is sometimes frustrating because there are so few parameters. Just the different syntax rulesone has to remember depending on if it's in the source or the filter or the sort or the date filter is daunting at best, intellectually debilitating at worst. And, Pierre, even tho you are answering questions left & right & I, for one, am extremely grateful for your diligence & patience, after a while if it doesn't slow down, it has to indicate some kind of confusion on this (user) side.
Comments