Re: Navigation question

On Feb 16, 9:06 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I figured it out -- I'm designing for the USER and when designing at
> > the logical level, I'm also designing workflow. After pulling up
> > information about a company, for example, the user goes to one of the
> > orders listed. From there, they might go to a product that is part of
> > a line item on the order. This is similar to users who go to a web
> > site and from there navigate to other web sites. Users navigate.
> > Their workflow includes a navigation path. So, at the conceptual
> > level we can navigate, users navigate, and at the physical level we
> > navigate.
>
> Yes, we can navigate around a user interface - the conceptual level.
> Yes, c++ code can navigate around its internal data structures - the
> physical level.
> No, we should not be navigating around propositions - the logical
> level. That we be a "salmon smack" by all accounts.
>
> > But there is one thread of theory within software
> > development that keeps pushing against navigation, as if it were a bad
> > thing.
>
> No! You are generalizing. Database Theorists only say navigation is a
> bad thing at the logical level. However, I have a feeling that you
> might have reached a recognition point here, and if so I think that's
> great.

I've learned a couple of things, but likely not what you are thinking.

1. I have learned that some people who do not like navigation confuse it with iteration, thinking that those who navigate also iterate. This is not necessarily the case. These two concepts can and should be considered separately.
2. I have learned that some people who do not like navigation confuse it with splitting queries, even contending after several complaints from me, that my replacement of two simple queries with two other simple queries was the splitting of a query. These two concepts can and should be considered separately.
3. I have learned that my own navigation thinking comes when I'm designing from the outside in. Users navigate.

What I have not yet figured out is if there really is still something wrong with navigation. Is my replacement of two queriest for Marshall's two queries flawed? It might be. I'm not digging in my heels, I'm asking an honest question and do not sense that I have received any good rationale for why logical (not just conceptual or physical) navigation is a bad thing, as in the 2-SQL-statement baby example I gave that contrasts with Marshalls example. Any light you can shed on that would be much appreciated. Above you simply reiterated it, with no rationale. Thanks. --dawn Received on Fri Feb 16 2007 - 19:24:46 CET