Budgeting?

[Robert C. Ramsdell III]

You want to make a distinction between the parent account, and the 
parent+child accounts.  To me such a distinction is meaningless, as I follow 
a simple rule that parent accounts never carry balances.  At most they are 
'clearinghouse' accounts, in which credits _always_ have corresponding 
debits. 

Thus to me the 'balance' in a parent account always represents the sum of 
the balances in the child accounts. 

Robert 

The Doctor What writes: 

> * Conrad Canterford (conrad at mail.watersprite.com.au) [030208 17:58]:
>> On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 08:28, The Doctor What wrote:
>> > > > BTW: I really think that on the reports, that you should be have two
>> > > > nodes for each account that has a sub-account.  One for the account
>> > > > and another for all the sub-accounts.  Because it's a pain
>> > > > otherwise. 
>> 
>> <helpful explanation snipped> 
>> 
>> I've been irritated by this too. There IS a checkbox that says "Include
>> all sub-accounts" (Or words to that effect) and/or a dropdown box that
>> says "Include sub-accounts to level ..." in the options which will do
>> what you want, but I agree its very unintuitive.
>> However, I think the dual-node thing is not the right solution. We need
>> some way of expressing this in the gui without making it confusing. My
>> thought would be to highlight the account on a single click, and flag it
>> with something else on a double click (the double click of course
>> meaning "this account and all sub-accounts").
> 
> The Include all sub-accounts and "Include sub-accounts to level"
> do-dads that some reports have are an improvement, but they are
> global.  What if someone wants all of Assets, but only Expense (and
> none of Expense's sub-nodes). 
> 
> Graphically, the problem is that the content of the node and the
> folder-ness of the tree are represented in one place. 
> 
> It might be better (this is just an idea) to have this instead:
> | Liabilites
> - Expense and Sub-Accounts
>   | Expense
>   + Household
>   + Groceries
>   ... etc. 
> 
> The idea being that on the tree that "Expense" vs. "Expense and
> Sub-Accounts" being two different things are represented by two
> different things.   
> 
> Using single vs. double clicks will allow access to the feature, but
> it won't be obvious, and a user would need to know the "magic"
> combination to do it.  But it would definately be a good solution
> untill a perfect one comes up. 
> 
> I may think of alternatives later.  This has been something that has
> irked me about the 'tree' widget for a lot of software. 
> 
> Ciao! 
> 
> -- 
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.  Inside a dog it's too dark
> to read.
> 	-- Groucho Marx 
> 
> The Doctor What: <fill in the blank>             http://docwhat.gerf.org/
> docwhat at gerf.org                                                   KF6VNC
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at lists.gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user