[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling

From: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:28:32 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 06:20:08PM -0700, James Busser wrote:

> On 31-Mar-08, at 1:28 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>> For reviewed one could use a checkmark character. For
>> unreviewed one could use a crossed out checkmark. I haven't
>> found a single unicode codepoint with a crossed out
>> checkmark. So I figured to show a writing (signing) hand for
>> those results that need signing. Other candidates would be:
> I am not keen on Unicode 2300 (the first of these inks) as it is a null 
> sign...
Well, it'd communicate "something's missing" (but not what
IS missing).

> I actually kind of like the second one, which is a
Unfortunately, few fonts support it.

> ... IMO the above might be less ambiguous than the current signing hand, 
> as the latter ambiguates
>       sign this
>       this has been signed
>       write or attach a note or issue a communication
True enough. Likely any sign will be ambigous.

> If you want to generate a screenshot of what "NOT CHECK MARK" would look 
> like in a small grid, I could show both to a few clinical colleagues and 
> report back their reactions :-)
My standard font doesn't have it so that's out :-(

GPG key ID E4071346 @
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]