Register stuff (summary of Carol and my talk).
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:13:11 -0500
Dave Peticolas wrote:
> Why not put the 'diff' number in the unused 'deb' and 'cred' column?
> Since the diff column is only present in multi-line mode, the shift
> to multi-line mode and back would be rather awkward visually.
> > Note too that this setup allows you to have two checks, and two
> > check numbers in the same transaction without confusion. This is
> > something we can't do right now, and possibly something we don't
> > want to do soon, but I figured it was worth mentioning as a
> > possibility.
> > When we look at this transaction from one of the other accounts,
> > *everything* stays the same except for the diff and the balance.
> > Here's what it would look like from Checking if we presume a
> > previous balance of 1200:
> > Date | Num | Desc | Account | deb | cr | diff | bal
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 2000-10-01| | Shopping spree. | | | | -700 | 1500
> > | | Louis XIV chair | Furniture | 200 | | |
> > | | Louis XIV sofa | Furniture | 400 | | |
> > | | Art Deco ottoman | Furniture | 100 | | |
> > | 1001 | Olga's Antiques | Checking | | 400 | |
> > | 321 | Olga's Antiques | Savings | | 300 | |
> Don't you mean diff = -400 and bal = 800?
> > * Carol mentioned, and I think she's right, that being able to edit
> > the "current account" in the first line of a transaction can be
> > very confusing (i.e in all the non-single-line modes). While I've
> > had good cause to use that trick to relocate transactions to other
> > places (when you're cleaning up a scrub account for example), it
> > might be a good idea not to make it seem like the obvious thing to
> > do. Perhaps the default tab traversal should just skip it. I
> > suspect it's rare that you'd really want to edit that field, and
> > skipping it would speed up normal data entry. If we think that's
> > a good idea, we should consider skipping the credit/debit field on
> > the transaction line as well.
> With the general ledger approach (show all splits), there is no need to
> have the 'current account' field, because the splits in the open account
> are visible as well, and presumably editable.
My original concern was that I think a real general ledger approach
would not normally
show all the splits from an account view. So my real preference would
be to have Gnucash pop up a
separate window for multi-item splits. Then the column headings could
reflect only the
necessary information for that transaction. If the transaction is done
in a separate window,
then the transaction appears separated from the register. The register
view would show
"Split" in the account field, and clicking on it would bring you to a
So I know there are some objections to doing this, because of the time
and the possible
extra keystrokes/use of mouse this would involve. What about this
idea? In multiline mode,
do everything in the register, as Rob suggested. In single or
double-line mode, bring up a separate
transaction window when the user clicks on a "Split" option. My guess
is that new users
would probably use single or double-line mode, and having a separate
transaction window makes
it appear a little more like Quicken.
Any thoughts on this? Accountants out there, how is this handled in
other accounting packages?
> gnucash-devel mailing list