pcplantdb

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>]

Bear Kaufmann wrote:
> > Bear Kaufmann wrote:
> >
> > > I think as a start we can try to re-factor the advanced search into 
> > > the
> > > inputs-outputs model.
> >
> > Use arrays of nested (cascading) options checkboxes.
>
> OK, at a more basic level, what are the inputs and outputs?
> In the previous email, I was trying to find how values in the current 
> database that can map to the input-output model.
> "Uses" generally map to outputs, "fodder", "nectar", "fruit", 
> "soap"...we'd need to start thinking of these in this manner first.

I see what you mean now.

> > Fill out form, perform search, save entire results to a user session 
> > cache. Fill out
> > form again & do search, save results to another cache - when done
> > perform an inputs-outputs report based on comparison of data in results
> > in all the separate caches.

I just had a fleeting vision of a PIW client action interface kind of 
like the Touchgraph thing. Fixed menu for all pages include a drag and 
drop bucket icon to put plant names in (retreived from anywhere in the 
db user interface a plant name can be displayed); when this is done all 
plant attributes, displayed in terms of inputs and outputs, are 
displayed in a popup window that can remain active but disappear from 
the screen so another can appear. Find another plant name and drop it 
into the search bucket and another window appears with I/O data for that 
plant - put it in background and do another plant. When done click on 
another icon fixed in the menu to compare all plant data screens reduced 
in the background, IOW, match Inputs to Outputs (plant "needs" to "plant 
produces") for PIW to compile and display a list of 
compatible/guild/companion/intercrop/succesion crop/symbiotic plants
based on initial search selections. Each I/O match category (Ex.: N2Fix) 
would have a list of plants under it, each tagged as I or O. This would, 
of course, not involve checkboxes, but some futuristic graphical action 
interface.

Maybe this feature could be added to the Guild Wizard you describe 
below, which could be renamed "Ask Guilda" , "Guild Lizard" or "The Big 
Maguilda" (sorry for the crude attempt at humor).

> I think I see what you're seeing, but I'd rephrase it. Instead of a 
> "session cache", lets start adding objects (plants for now) to a 
> "Guild", which could be saved by the user.
> In my discussion with Stephanie around the Rich Client, we were 
> thinking of Guild "Wizards" (pardon the Windows term). A set of say 5 
> objects. They start prefilled with basic search terms. There's the 
> n-fixer object, you click it, and a search is preformed, with nitrogen 
> fixing required (plus "global" items like your hardiness zone, or 
> location that apply to the whole guild). You find a plant you like, and 
> save it into that object (now the plant itself), and continue on 
> through the tree, vine, etc recommended plants for a guild (of which 
> there could be a variety that are built).
>
> That make any sense, or should I try and build a mockup?

Yes. I could see it a lot more completely that way. Or you could take 
what you wrote above and expand on that with more explanation and 
description.

> > Discover guilds or compatible groups, design systems, go and plant with
> > plan in hand.
>
> Emphasis on discover. Find, get recommendations. We can't assume the 
> computer will get it all right, and give us a prefer guild, but yes, we 
> can help people discover potential.

Absolutely - and encourage them to go out and plant and experiment.


LL