From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Rick Smith" Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 389187969 References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sf87j$47n$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sh6ic$o8p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6shhcq$lid$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sk59r$8e6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6ske0c$16k$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6t3use$5la$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Trace: news1.atlantic.net 905293808 207.30.140.116 (Tue, 08 Sep 1998 18:30:08 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 18:30:08 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: adam@irvine.com wrote in message <6t3use$5la$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article , > "Rick Smith" wrote: > >> 1. No user should be required to enter more data than is necessary. If the >> correct 4 digit year can be determined by the last two digits, do not ask >> for more than these 2 digits. > >Well, just to be nitpicky: Does this mean that if the window of reasonable >dates is small enough, the user should only be asked for 1 digit, because the >correct 4-digit year could be determined from just the last digit and because >"we should never ask the user for more data than is necessary"? > The second sentence should have been "..., do not require more ..." This change causes the second sentence to match the meaning of the first sentence. In that sense, the user should be permitted to enter one digit or two digits or four digits, if that is the choice of the user. IMO, it is better that RSI not be the fault of the developer for requiring the entry of too much data. >I don't think the "minimum amount of data necessary" philosophy makes any >sense here. Rather, I think the legitimate reason here is that if users have >been entering 2-digit years all along, it might make sense to keep the user >interface the way it is. (I'm assuming we're talking about data entry people >or other users who have been using the application for a while and have >gotten accustomed to it.) However, if, in the same application, there are >some places where 2 digits are sufficient and other places where it isn't >(and thus 4 digits are "necessary"---unless you want to say that only the >last 3 digits should be sufficient! :)) I'd personally prefer all the years >to be 4 digits. As a user, I would much rather have consistency than an >overzealous attempt at "allowing me to enter just the minimum amount of data >I have to". The latter would actually make things less efficient, since I'd >have to look at the screen and think about whether I need to type in 2 or 4 >digits, instead of just automatically entering a 4-digit year every time. Of >course, non-touch typists (and I mean those of you who have to hunt for the 9 >key *twice* when entering the year 1998) may see things differently. > One reason that users have been entering two digit years, "all along," is that developers have required them to do so. Allowing one digit years, provides the opportunity for users to become accustomed to entering less data. A recent discussion in news:comp.lang.cobol concerned the longevity of four digit years. The concenus was that by 03 (or 2003) most of the systems that had been modified to accept four digit years, for data entry, will have been modified to reduce the requirement to two digits. I do not remember there being any disagreement that it would happen; it was just a question of when. ------------------------------- Rick Smith e-mail: < ricksmith@aiservices.com >