A quickfill problem and an enhancement suggestion

[David Carlson]

On 4/6/2011 3:42 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> On woensdag 6 april 2011, Paul Abrahams wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 06:45:02 PM David T. wrote:
>>>> Somehow my reply to the original comment stating that in
>>>> the case of
>>>> auto fill the backspace key only deletes the extra
>>>> characters but not
>>>> the last character typed was lost.  Paul, your
>>>> suggestion has already
>>>> been implemented.
>>> Actually, not quite. My experience is that, yes, a backspace does clear
>>> out the remaining Quickfill--but only until you start typing again. If
>>> your Quickfill term is "MY GLOBAL BANK TRANSACTION" and you type "My
>>> Gl<backspace>", the entry you typed appears. But the moment you start
>>> again with the "o", the Quickfill takes over again (and again, and
>>> again). This will continue until you have typed out "My Global Bank
>>> Transaction.<backspace>". So now, instead of saving you keystrokes, the
>>> Quickfill has forced the user to type the full entry out--and then two
>>> more keystrokes.
>>>
>>> What's the point of having Quickfill like this?
> I agree here that in your situation Quickfill is counter-productive.
>
>> Just to clarify: does an initial backspace (or backspacing past the first
>> character) now disable Quickfill for the current transaction until the
>> transaction has been completed?  That's what I was suggesting.  And if so,
>> in what version does that appear?
>>
> No this is not implemented yet that I know of.
>
>> To me, the most appealing aspect of this convention is that it utilizes a
>> bit of semantics that otherwise would have no meaning.
>>
> Yes.
>
> To  all people that have added their ideas and opinions in this thread, can 
> you have a look at the uservoice request for this feature [1] and vote for it 
> if you care about this feature and haven't done so yet. And if you can add 
> useful suggestions of how you think this could best be realized, please add 
> them as comments there.
>
> The quickfill discussion has been running for a while now on the user list, 
> which is useful to show user concern and their vision on a solution. But my 
> experience so far shows also that feature discussions on the list often end up 
> being just that: discussions. I hope the uservoice tool may turn out to be a 
> more practical tool for turning discussions into a useful prioritized list of 
> things to do. But that would only work if we effectively go in and mark our 
> most urgent requests.
>
> On the other hand to be fair I want to note that the priorities set via 
> uservoice do not necessarily align with the developer's priorities, but it at 
> least helps to show more clearly what the users care about and can as such 
> influence what developers will be inclined work on next.
>
> Geert
>
> [1] http://gnucash.uservoice.com/forums/101223-feature-
> request/suggestions/1568131-provide-per-transaction-cancel-of-autofill-with-
> e?ref=title
I was not aware of the uservoice feature request/suggestions.  I have
added my suggestion there.  Thank you.

David L Carlson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0xDC7C8BF3.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 1729 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-user/attachments/20110406/4f02a498/attachment-0001.bin>