[Fwd: Re: Double-entry explanation]

[Diane Mackay]

Am fwd'ing this to the list, as it came to my addr only:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Double-entry explanation
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 07:26:17 +1000
From: doug foskey <lemans4 at dodo.com.au>
Reply-To: lemans4 at dodo.com.au
To: Diane Mackay <diane at mackmoon.com>
References: <3F534122.9000909 at extracta.com.br> 
<3F534F2A.2070903 at mackmoon.com>

On Monday 01 September 2003 11:52 pm, Diane Mackay wrote:
> Jon Lapham wrote:
> > I was reading through Chapter 2 of the GnuCash Concepts Guide,
> > specifically section "2.2.2 Double Entry", in which we define and give
> > an example of double entry accounting.
> >
> > see:
> > http://www.gnucash.org/docs/v1.8/C/gnucash-guide/basics_entry1.html#basic
> >s_dbentry2
> >
> >
> > I think the inclusion of the split transaction example (the paycheck) is
> > a little too much to chew for a new user this early in the Concepts
> > Guide.  I like the other examples that involve 2 accounts (buying
> > groceries and the simple income example)... but I think that a split
> > transaction is something most new users need some time to understand.
> > And, in this section, I think we are really just trying to get people to
> > grasp the concept of double entry.
> >
> > So, I propose to remove the split transaction example.  Comments?
> > Objections?
> >
> > I think we should still *reference* the fact that you can do multiple
> > account transactions, and give a link to a later part of the
> > documentation that explains split transactions in more detail (chapter
> > 4).
> >
> > Nice side effect of this is to make this section shorter.  It is pretty
> > long as it is.
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree that the split transaction for the pay check may be a bit too
> much here (but I think it is good to have an explanation of a split
> transaction somewhere in the docs).  A simpler example might be better
> to depict the double entry concept.  Perhaps it would be good to have
> two examples:  a very simple transaction and a more complicated split
> transaction.  But a split transaction example could be placed into a
> different section, and (kinda) pick up where this double entry
> explanation ends.
>
> Diane
>

Wy not just have a link to the more complicated explanation, as a 'more
information' type addendum to the chapter?

regards Doug