Planner issues #2

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 04:27:48PM +0200, Joakim Bygdell wrote:
> >> I agree the two representations differ, but my aim was actually to
> >> change the saved plan rather than the table. I actively suppressed the
> >> information about transition times (and also waypoints where only the
> >> ascend speed changes) as otherwise the table would get much longer and
> >> already now you have to scroll far too early. The rationale was to
> >> provide only the really useful information with the least clutter.
> > 
> > I have been wondering aloud about this before. In planner mode, we don't
> > use the bottom two panes. That is so wasteful. Should we change that?
> > Move the table of waypoints in the place of the dive list? Would that
> > help?
> 
> That might be a big improvement.
> Replacing the dive list with the waypoint table allows the user to see
> how the finished plan will look before it is saved, while at the same
> time only showing the user editable parts in the “Dive Planner Points”
> box prevents unnecessary scrolling.

I was thinking that this way we could have the short, editable table in
one spot (that ONLY includes the user entered waypoints) and the full
plan, all the run times and transition times at another spot (likely where
right now we show the dive list).

> >> But I am open to be convinced otherwise. We could also make that a user preference.
> > 
> > I keep saying this. More options usually means more problems. More things
> > to test, more UI clutter, more things that can go wrong. I'm not saying
> > "absolutely not" - I'm just raising a warning flag.
> 
> Move it to the preferences?

Yes of course. We should have a preference tab for the planner.
But even then, you want to keep the total number of options under control.

We need:
bottom sac
deco sac
switch point
ascent speed deep
ascent speed shallow
switch point
max pO2 at depth
max pO2 at deco
minimum gas reserves (in liters? in share of the tanks (rule of thirds)?  in minutes?)
...

/D