From: Braisted, J. C. <bra...@ti...> - 2006-09-06 21:15:08
|
Hi Joe, I think that several of the dialogs could be reworked similar to what you propose. Even with relatively high resolution the OK button on some of the modules is still hidden off screen. The scroll pane is an option if everything cooperates and holds its size correctly. For most dialogs the last part of the constructor includes the 'pack()' method. I'm not sure how pack() is going to work if it thinks it can compress. It might just take some work to get it going. Probably setting a preferred size for the top level (enclosing object) object could help. Also, the 'showModal' method that launches the dialogs currently just centers the dialog. Perhaps if you put the dialog into a scroll pane this method could assess the screen size and modify accordingly. The JSplitPane seems like a very good idea between the group assignment area and other controls so that the group selection area can be expanded. *Maybe on each of the stat dialogs we could have a button that launches a widget for group assignments. This would be in place of an embedded group selection panel. Sort of like the SVM classification dialog. This could be launched in its own window. It would also be nice if the grouping could be stored in the data structure and new runs of the dialog could refer to the defined grouping scheme. Just curious, does Madam make an accommodations for monitors set for low resolution that we could consider? I favor smaller dialogs rather than scrolling but I'm open to both. Here are a couple other ideas: a.) Tabbed Panes to group related controls/selections The separate JPanels within the dialogs, including the stat modules like ANOVA, are supposed to contain sets of controls that are related in some way. What if these big guys had their dialogs either split onto tabbed panes or if the options came up on successive dialogs? The tabbed pane idea would be similar to EASE where options are split onto separate panes. b.) Successive Dialogs ... wizard style... probably not such a good choice. The successive dialogs option is another option where one could present the options in a logical order. Sample grouping (which could be reworked to produce widget for these dialogs), p-value corrections, ... could each be displayed successively. **Has the draw back of not being able to go back to check or change selections without some strange loop back control. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Suggestion 2 about running allowing 2 group ANOVA. I'm not sure why it's not allowed. Perhaps Nirmal can answer that part. I suppose if someone knows about ANOVA they would probably know about t test. John -----Original Message----- From: Joseph White [mailto:jw...@ji...]=20 Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 10:02 PM To: mev Subject: Option windows for statistics algorithms Hi Guys, I'm writing this message for 2 reasons: 1) to suggest a change to the GUI for the options panels for the statistics and other algorithm modules, and 2) to point out what I consider a statistics error on the ANOVA pages.=20 1) Being visually impaired, I usually use lower screen resolution to make font and images larger on screen. This means that any panel that is not scrollable can, and often does, over-fill the screen. Without scrollbars, it is difficult to get to some of the data fields and buttons. I can re-size the window, but this leads to the problem that group selection for t-test and ANOVA, are not possible because the display area becomes too narrow to be useful.=20 My suggestion is this: add scrollbars to the options panels. Also, add re-size bars between elements of the same panel so that parts of the panel may be re-sized without changing the position of the window.=20 2) On the ANOVA options panel, the user must select at least 3 groups in order to do ANOVA. If a user wishes to choose 2 groups, the user must use t-test because the ANOVA page will not accept anything less than 3 groups. Although, a 2 class ANOVA is exactly the same as a t-test, it is still a valid ANOVA. This should be allowed. Those that are statistically challenged will simply wonder why the MeV authors made such a simple mistake and move on to some other program, unless there are some directions to use t-test instead--which there aren't.=20 I hope these remarks are useful, and look forward to your response. Joe White DFCI |