I feel like there's something about grids that I'm missing, but I can't find it through Googling around.
For example, I want to be able to declare ten rows with ten columns, populate them with data, and then later realize that I don't need row 3, and be able to quickly reformat it. I'm not speaking of doing this programmatic, but while redesigning the project. One way that this could be handled in theory would be HTML's manner of deleting a set of <tr></tr>s. This would be limited to rows, obviously. Another way might be the ability to give each column a name, such as "CityColumn," "StateColumn" (or named whatever else depending on the use of Grid), and then simply deleting the column's definition and all elements declared to exist in the column.
As is, if you delete any given row or column, you must go to each and every element that appears in a later row or column and change the row or column's number. It seems like there should be a better way to use XAML's grid that I'm not making use of.
While I lack a clear question that I can define, it can be said that I'm looking for best practices and/or any tips and tricks to make Grid easy to modify it and its contents and, in general, provide upkeep for.
Either explanations or links to learning resources about XAML's Grid would be welcome.
I would recommend what Jeff Mercado said: ListView with GridView as its View. The columns of that view can have headers, and if you remove an item the respective row is gone.
Also you can optimize the Grid maintainability, if you intend to stick with that, by using named references rather than indices, so if you remove one row that becomes much easier.
Related
UPDATED QUESTION
SOLUTION
I am looking for a better way to conditionally format a cell, if its contents match any cell from another column (in a different tab or sheet).
Edit: I need a solution that will not be overwritten by copy/paste of a new cell without CF rules.
The method I currently have in place is via Sheet's internal conditional formatting settings. However it isn't completely successful because rows are often created and deleted copy and pasted over the range, overwriting or breaking apart the range that the conditional rule is applied to. The conditional formatting rule I have tried is:
=VLOOKUP(D2:D,INDIRECT("Blocked!$A$2:$A"),1,FALSE)=D2:D
This works until I insert a new row into the range that it is applied on. It will then only be applied to D2:D5 and D7:D1000, etc, for a row created at 6. Over time this leads to 100's of conditional formatting rules and large gaps of to where it is being applied.
It is my understanding that this needs to be done with Apps Script, to be done completely, and I am not sure where to begin.
Here is an example sheet
Keeping the "Blocked" list of cells as a separate sheet would also be acceptable.
Should be pretty straightforward. New tab on your shared sheet called MK.Idea with this cond. formatting rule:
=ISNUMBER(MATCH(D1,INDIRECT("Blocked!A:A"),0))
Note: Could you mention where you got/how you constructed your other attempt? Appscript is definitely not necessary, And it would be good to correct the record at the source.
I've never really done anything with Access before (though I have done a lot with MySQL and PHP), so this is sort of my first go. It's simple enough: two tables, tblShapes and tblExamples. They are linked by "JCH Shape" which is primary in tblShapes (it's text). I made a form with a combobox that can select a JCH Shape. I then requery the form so that a subform can be populated with the appropriate data.
Some of my data, though, is differentiated only by asterisks. So, right now, the values for the column JCH Shape in the rows I have are:
(g)CVC
(g)C*V
CV*CV
CVCV
I was fine until I added that last value, "CVCV". Now, whenever I click it, any time I try to select other data, the form requeries, but displays blank data until I close the form and reopen it, unless I select CVCV, in which case it displays its own data just fine, as if the form thinks everything else has lost its associated data.
Asterisk is definitely the problem here, but it only is a problem when it distinguishes CV*CV and CVCV, or other forms where the only distinguishing character is * (it doesn't affect (g)CVC and (g)C*V, for example, but when I tried making (g)CV, the same problem occurred). I don't understand. I'm figuring something is going wrong when I call Requery, but I don't know enough about how Access works internally to know if it falsely interpretting * as a wildcard, or if I'm doing something wrong.
I've linked to the file. I know it's messy, but it's my first attempt. Any help would be very much appreciated:
http://the-polyglot.net/uploads/other/SP-JCH-Words.accdb
Thanks!
EDIT: Now in the version I uploaded, it appears to be doing it for every entry after the first one clicked. I don't understand at all. It was only doing it when I clicked CVCV 5 minutes ago and the only thing I did was closed and reopened Access.
Firstly, you should be using an Autonumber primary key for the tblShapes table, so that each 'Shape' has a unique value. There should be a foreign key value in tblExamples to show the relationship between the tables.
Secondly, (regardless of whether you follow my first point), you have a main form and two subforms.
The main form should have the RecordSource set to nothing.
The LinkMaster properties of the subforms should be set to the name of the combobox.
I would give the controls names with preceding three letters such as cmb for combobox and txt for textbox. This will make the code clearer and avoid conflicts where fields and controls are suing the same name.
Good luck!
I think I solved the problem. I was using a criterion on the main form's recordset Like [Forms]![Add Record]![ShapeCombo]
So, this derived to Like CV*CV in some cases. I changed this to just a literal match and it works fine. I still wonder if there's an easy way to escape sensitize characters in Like expressions, though. Does anyone know of a way other than doing a manual string replace and changing * to [*], for example? My problem is fixed, but I'm just curious how I would solve it if I were to need to use a Like expression with both intended wildcards and literal asterisks.
I have a table of data that I'm trying to "standardize". The data entered into the table wasn't static or standardized (like with drop-down lists of answers), leaving me with multiple variations of answers where I want a static, universal answer.
For instance, let's say that there's a column in the database called "Type of pet". Because user input wasn't standardized, people could enter in variations of a specific type of pet, rather than generalized form of the pet. So instead of just entering "Dog", there are different versions of dogs like "Collie", "Mutt", "Labrador", etc.
How do I go about transcribing these answers into their generalized form -- replacing Collie/Mutt/Labrador/etc answers in the table with just "Dog" (or "Cat", or "Bird", etc.)?
I realize there needs to be some form of a manually-entered "translation" function. My gut reaction is that a long-spanning list of stacked if-statements would be inefficient, as well as being tedious to control and expand.
Is there some kind of process or system for doing something like this? Like some type of lookup table system/matrix?
I'm assuming a foreach loop to iterate through the array of records would be most appropriate. And then within each iteration of the foreach loop, you'd have it do a test/comparison of the pet variable against some type of list (that I would have created manually) -- but what would you use for this lookup table/list? Or this step of the process? Would you have it as some type of a SQL database/table, an array, a CSV file, etc.?
Then, once this comparison is completed and the "translated" equivalent of the type of pet is determined, the foreach loop would update that specific row of the record, either overwriting the old non-standardized value, or perhaps just tacking on the new standardized equivalent into a new column (for later verifying).
My gut reaction is that a long-spanning list of stacked if-statements
would be inefficient, as well as being tedious to control and expand.
100% correct, and because of this you really only have one option: Manually go through the database and clean it up. Once that is done you will need to restrict user input using stop down lists rather than raw text input.
Depending on your users you might want to look at how Stackoverflow does tags - essentially allowing anyone to do the cleanup for you.
But if you have like 150000 records or something doing an SQL find-replace query might help clean up the data to start.
This sounds like a data normalization project to me though I don't have alot of experience with it in practice, but in theory you start with how the data is entered. For instance, free text fields allow users to enter anything they want. You'd want to change that after scrubbing the data. And it pays to know how the data got in in the first place. Was it freetext, a bullet, a drop-down menu? etc.
You'd also want to create a data dictionary of all the standardized terms that can replace the multitude of variations with.
Then you could create an update query that would go through the old data and update it with the new using an update query and wildcards.
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Use-the-Find-and-Replace-dialog-box-to-change-data-2eee8d02-5a40-4328-ba56-ec0406865680
This could be a more automated way of scrubbing the data rather than find and replace too.
-Al
I'm currently revisiting an area of my Windows-based software and looking at changing the relationship from 1->M to M->M. As a result, I need to adjust the UI to accommodate selecting multiple related records.
There are a lot of ways to handle this that are common, but usually pretty clunky. Examples include the two-pane list of all items, and list of selected items, or a list of all records and a checkbox beside each one that applies.
In my case, there may be an awful lot (in the tens of thousands) of records that could be associated, so I'll probably need to include some kind of search mechanism.
I'm not looking for a hard and fast answer -- I can implement something pretty easily that's functional, I'm looking to see if anyone here has come up with (or seen) any great UIs for doing this kind of thing, whether it's web based, Windows, Mac, Unix, whatever.
Images or links to them would be appreciated!
Edit: here's an example of what I'm considering:
I like the way StackOverflow relates many tags with many questions:
Items are displayed as user types
You start obviously with the record you want to associate multiple items with.
As you type the search displays the matches ( no need to press on "Search" )
The user select the desired record ( Sorting would be nice. SO uses "tag relevance". For instance typing 'a' brings Java rather than asp because Java has more questions than asp, in your case relevance may be the user name )
The system creates the relationship ( in memory )
If a number of records ( 5+ ) are filling the input field, they are moved into a semi-regid area ( not a SO problem because it only has 5 tag withing a single question, but in your case something like the "interesting tags" feature would be needed )
Associated items are moved to a "rigid" area
Of course in an ordered manner ( using a table )
Finally when the user end with the association it clicks SAVE or CANCEL buttons.
This approach has more efficiency by not needing to have the user press on "search" or "add other" which distracts them from what they're doing, it is being said it interrupts its train of thought.
Also, if you make the user grab the mouse to click on something while they are typing the UI is less efficient ( I think there is something called the Hick's law about that, but quite frankly I may be wrong )
As you see this approach is pretty much already what you have in mind, but adding some facilities to make the user happier ( The danger would be if the user loves this approach and wants it in other parts of the system )
It's an interesting and fairly common UI problem, how to efficiently select items. I'm assuming that you are intending on having the user first select a single item and that the mechanism you are interested is how to choose other items that get related to this first single item.
There ares various select methods. From a usability standpoint, it would be preferable to just have ONE method used for each scenario. Then when the user sees it, they will know what to do.
various selection techniques:
dropdown list - obvious for single selects.
open list multi select - eg: a multiline textbox that shows 10 or 20 lines and has a scroll bar
dropdown list where you select then hit and 'add' link or button to add multiple selects
list moving - where you have two open lists, with all the choices available in the left list, you select a few then click a button to move your selection to the right list.
Check boxes - good for just a few choices of multiple selection possibilities.
List of items, each with an 'add' button next to them - good for short lists
You've said that you'll have thousands of possible choices, so that eliminates 1 and 5. Really, thousands will eliminate all of them, as the usability doesn't scale well with more than a few hundred in the list.
If you can count on the user to filter the list, like in your example, then 6 may be suitable. If you think of how Facebook picture tagging works, I think that it fairly efficient for long lists: background: Facebook picture tagging is a mechanism that allows you to assign one or more people to portions of an image - ie 'tag' them.
When you select an image to tag (ie the 'single item') and wish to relate other items(people) to it, A dialog box pops up. It contains the top 6 or so names that you've used in the past, and a textbox where you can start to type the person's name you wish to use. As you type, the list dynamically changes to reduce the number of people to only those who contain the letter sequence you've typed. This works very well for large lists, but it does rely on the user typing to filter. It also will rely on use of scripting to intelligently reduce the list based on the user's input.
For your application it would rely on the user performing this step once for each association, as I'm assuming that the other items won't all have similar names!
Here's an image of the Facebook tagging application: http://screencast.com/t/9MPlpJQJzBQ
A search feature that filters records in real time as you type would probably be a good idea to include. Another would be the possibility to sort the records.
Since there may be a lot of records, the best choice in this case is probably to have a separate area which displays what you have already chosen, so that the user won't have to scroll around the selection areas to find what they already have.
self-explanatory GUI http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8568/28666917.png
Link to the original image
Another thing is, that in my opinion your problem is not about selecting multiple records, but filtering those tens of thousands of records. M->M association can be implemented in variety of way, but the tricky part is to provide a convenient and logical way to browse/search the huge amount of data.
I'd suggest not having to click add more to be able to search. The warning at the right is nice, but IMHO it should only say the search displays results as the user types.
Sorting a column (maybe along with the search) would also be a nice functionality. I'd suggesting it being done by clicking on the header of the table, with some icon indicating whether the sort is ascending or descending.
I'd suggest also the search to do an approximate string matching in case there are no or few results. It is so annoying not being able to find something you don't remember exactly.
Finally, for testing the first impression (though not the functionality itself), I'd suggest uploading it to the 5 second test and see what you get.
I think that what you have mocked up is a pretty good way to do it. When you think about the tags-to-posts relationship on a blog (or on SO even), that is many-to-many and it is usually implemented very similarly: for one post, you search for (or, since they are simple strings, directly enter) as many tags as you want to associate with it. I can't really think of any many-to-many relationships I encounter often, although I know there are probably many...
There are a number of important questions to consider - how many records will typically be used (as opposed to available for association)? Will there be a large number of records on one side of the association (given the switch from 1->M, this seems likely)?
If one of the quantities of records is usually very small (<10, I'd say), call this the LHS (because it usually is), then the best way to associate may be to allow searches for LHS and RHS items, then drag-and-drop them onto a list - LHS items onto the list proper; RHS items into the existing LHS items. That way, it's intuitive to specify a relation between to items. You could also add other options like "associate with all", or a grouping pen so you can assign several records to several other records - nothing is tedious like having to do 15 drags-and-drops of the same record.
In fact, I think that's the most crucial bit of any M->M UI design - minimize repetition. Doing the same thing over for 100s of records (remember that if "nobody will ever...", they will) is unfun, especially if it's complex. I know this seems to contradict my earlier advice, but I don't think it does - design for the typical use case, but make sure that the atypical ones do not make the program unusable.
Okay, so I'm making a table right now for "Box Items".
Now, a Box Item, depending on what it's being used for/the status of the item, may end up being related to a "Shipping" box or a "Returns" box.
A Box Item may be defective:if it is, a flag will be set in the Box Item's row (IsDefective), and the Box Item will be put in a "Returns" box (with other items to be returned to that vendor). Otherwise, the Box Item will eventually be put into a "Shipping" box (with other items to be shipped). (Note that Shipping and Returns boxes have their own tables: there's not one common table for all boxes... though maybe I should consider doing that if possible as a third possibility?)
Maybe I'm just not thinking clearly today, but I started questioning what should be done in this situation.
My gut tells me that I should have a separate field for each possible relation, even if only one of the relations can happen at any given time, which would make the schema for Box Items look like:
BoxItemID
Description
IsDefective
ShippingBoxID
ReturnBoxID
etc...
This would make the relations clear, but it seems wasteful (since only one of the relations will be used at any time). So then I thought I could have just one field for the BoxID, and determine which BoxID it's referring to (a Shipping or a Returns Box ID) based on the IsDefective field:
BoxItemID
Description
IsDefective
BoxID
etc...
This seems less wasteful, but doesn't sit right with me. The relation isn't obvious.
So, I put it to you, database gurus of Stackoverflow. What would you do in this situation?
EDIT: Thank you everyone for your input! It's given me a lot to think about. For one, I'm going to use an ORM next time I start a project like this. =) For two, since I'm not right now, I'll bite the four bytes and use two fields.
Thanks everyone again!
I'm with Psychotic Venom and mattlant.
Going the polymorphic route (having to figure out which table your foreign key points to based on the contents of another field) is going to be a pain. Coding the constraints for that maybe tough (I'm not sure most databases would support that natively, I think you'd have to use a trigger).
Do items ever move between the tables? Sticking with two tables with identical definitions where one is for returns and one is for shipping may be the easiest route. If you want to stick with the definition you first proposed (with the two separate fields) is perfectly reasonable.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" and all that. While it seems wasteful, remember what you're storing. Since they are IDs they are probably just integers, maybe 4 bytes. Wasting four bytes per record is basically nothing. In fact, due to padding to put things on even addresses or other such things it may be "free" to put that extra field in there. It all depends on the DB design.
Unless you have a very good reason to go the polymorphic route (like you're on an embedded system with little memory or you have to replicate across some really slow 9600bps link) it probably won't be worth the headaches you can end up with. Having to write all those special cases into your queries can get annoying.
Quick example: doing a join between two tables where if you want to join is based on if the isDefective flag is set is going to be a pain. Being able to just use one of the two columns alone is probably enough of a hassle you may save, at least for me.
I would consider making a single table for the boxes and the box type be a column of the box table. This would simplify the relationships and make it easy to still query for box type. So the box item only has one foreign key to the boxId.
I'd use what Hibernate calls Table-per-subclass, so my DB would wind up with 3 tables for Boxes: Box, ShippingBox, and ReturnBox. The FK in BoxItem would point to Box.
What you're talking about is polymorphic relations. A single ID that can reference multiple other tables. There are several frameworks that support this, however, it is (potentially) bad for database integrity (that could be a whole other discussion whether or not your database or your application should maintain referential integrity).
What about this?
BoxItem:
BoxItemID, Description, IsDefective
Box:
BoxID, Description
BoxItemMap:
BoxID, BoxItemID, BoxItemType
Then you can have BoxItemType be an enumeration, or an integer where you define constants in your application as "Return" or "Shipping" as the type of box.
Agree about the polymorphic discussion above, although it has potential to be used poorly, it is still a viable solution.
Basically you have a base table called box. Then you have two other tables, shipping box and return box. Those two add any extra fields that are special to them. they are related to box with a 1:1 fk.Boz base table has the common fields of all box types.
You relate BoxItem with the box table. The way you you get the proper box type is by doing a query that joins the child box with the root box based on the key. The record that has in both the base box and the child box is of that type.
You just have to be careful like mentioned that when you create a box type that it is done correctly. BUt thats what testing is for. The code to add them only needs ot written once. Or use an ORM.
Almost all ORM's support this strategy.
I'd go with just a single BoxItems table with IsDefective, ShippingBoxID, the shipping-box-related fields, ReturnBoxID and the return-box-related fields. Some fields will always be NULL for each record.
This is a very simple and self-evident design that the next developer is unlikely to be confused by. In theory this design is inefficient because of the guaranteed empty fields for each row. In practice, databases tend to have a minimum required storage size for each row anyway, so (unless the number of fields is huge) this design is as efficient as possible anyway, and much easier to code to.
I'd probably go with:
BoxTable:
box_id, box_descrip, box_status_id ...
1, Lovely Box, 1
2, Borked box, 2
3, Ugly Box, 3
4, Flammable Box, 4
BoxStatus:
box_status_id, box_status_name, box_type_id, ....
1,Shippable, 1
2,Return, 2
3,Ugly, 2
4,Dangerous,3
BoxType:
box_type_id, box_type_name, ...
1, Shipping box, ...
2, Return box, ....
3, Hazmat box, ...
That way the Box Status defines the box type, and it's flexible if you need to expand into a few more status levels or box types later on.