hello Jougough, hello All,
Originally Posted by NAV
I agree. The number of variables to be set is, relatively, quite high. It should be prevented that to many users trust the alarm function, without having sufficient understanding of the end result of the combination of settings.
I agree. It might be wise to include a 'warning' on the plugin window of OpenCPN, where the plugins can be activated, saying that the alarm function should be further tested and that caution is required in using it.
One thing is certain, now, users could easily make choices not triggering alarm without his knowledge. This is unacceptable. OpenCPN and plugins were created to increase the security
, not to endanger the user.
I understand the need to move things forward. So momentarily let go of the plugin in production by improving assistance.
But forgive "the iron in the fire" immediately us.
Moreover, the plugin does not answer the needs of all. In particular, it triggers an alert if a boat comes within due area bounded by a "boundary". He must also triggers an alert by going outside.
So I offer this thought:
Each "boundary" defines two zones: inside and outside. Mathematically, these areas are complementary to one another.
With a "boundary", there is, in OD, 3 options:
- Grid inside, therefore, the outside is not a grid area,
- Grid on the outside, so the interior
is not a grid area,
- No grid. So the interior
and exterior are "not squared."
When an area is taken into account in WD I plan 6 choices in the head
of the user:
A: If there is a grid on one side or the other of the boundary:
- A1: The grid area is an authorized area and the additional area is a restricted area. That leaves one freedom
- A2: The grid area is a restricted area, and the additional zone is a permitted area. That leaves one freedom
- A3 / A4: The grid area is permitted or prohibited area, and the additional area is permitted or prohibited. That leaves two freedoms
B: In the absence of grid lines, both sides of the "boundary"
- B1: A grid-free zone is a restricted area. Leaving, one freedom,
- B2: A grid-free zone is an authorized area. That leaves one freedom,
- B3 / B4: A grid-free area can be allowed or prohibited. That leaves two freedoms.
I did not need to tell you that it is monstrous:
- Difficult to explain to users on the website,
- Hard to understand for users,
- Difficult to code to the developer.
We must make choices. Here's an example that I like a lot:
(In the presence of a grid, the grid area is prohibited and its complementary zone is allowed) and (in the absence of grid, the two areas are permitted / prohibited).
- A: In the presence of a grid, the alarm sounds when the ship enters a prohibited area
- B: In the absence of any grid, the alarm sounds if the boat crosses a "boundary"
Using the same example, there is:
- In OD I creates an area with the grid inside.
- In WD, this means that the boat does not go in and the alert is triggered if it comes.
- In OD I creates an area with the grid outside.
- In WD, this means that the boat should not go outside and the alert is triggered if fate.
It may be that, in the presence of a grid, the user prefers a grid area is permitted, and that a non-grid area is prohibited. This should be set in the General preferences of WD plugin and can not be changed elsewhere so be it defined "once and for all." But now, in WD, there is no general preferences.
- In OD, I create an area without grid
- In WD, this means that if the ship passes the "boundary", in one direction or the other.
I am convinced that with this type of choice:
- The development is facilitated,
- Explanations on the website will be easy,
- Users can easily understand the user manual.
In addition, in all cases:
- No warning for the inactivated area, visible or invisible.
- Alerts, as defined above, for visible or invisible zones. And in this case, an invisible area should be momentarily made visible.
When defining an "alert zone", you no longer need to remember what has been done in OD. Let WD check if the area has a grid or if it does not have.
Therefore, I suggest that there are no choices in WD. The choices are made:
- "Once for all" in the way we define the role of the grid (permission or prohibition is in General preferences WD)
- At the time of the decision of the presence or not of a grid and the grid side of this possible from the "boundary".
Jongough, what do you think? And think that beta testers?
Note: With the implementation of this, the current language file is outdated and conflict translation of the word "exclusion" and "inclusion", between the two plugins, disappears.