[GNC-dev] Minority features and bad GUI decissions

[Frank H. Ellenberger]

David,

when I talk in this thread about "traditional" or "standard" I mean
the "Venetian Method" as first published by Fra. Pacioli
with ink on paper
probably in roman numbers (without zero or minus)

Am 13.09.2018 um 00:00 schrieb David T.:
>> * IMHO special options are at least
>> in book options: Use Split Action Field for Number. Traditionally
>> Transactions are numbered, but some user wish to number splits instead.
> Perhaps this is a reflection of the jurisdiction in which you live, but most users in the US setting up GnuCash for personal use will NOT be concerned with numbering their transactions or their splits. To be honest, given that the definition of “split” is rather specific to GnuCash (based on discussions over terminology I’ve seen in the past on the lists), I have a difficult time believing that a new user is going to know the difference between numbering transactions versus numbering (the GnuCash concept of) splits. 

Today there is no direct need to number them by the user - internally
GUIDs are used. In times of ink and paper the entries of the same
transaction in the different books where associated by the entry number
of the journal.

>> in Preferences->Accounts: Reverse Balance Accounts: The traditional
>> selection is "Credit Accounts", but some users wish a different view.
> I don’t understand why you bring this up here; it’s not on the NAHS assistant.
> 

Both have the same origin: Up to the moment when they were impemented,
it was clear, they are not standard. Then there was a bad GUI decision
to add "neutral" tooltips which did not say clear, which normal and
which a special feature is. This results in confusing not only new users.

That is one of  the places, where the documentation can lead to
improvements of the GUI.

Frank