Watchdog Plugin

[rgleason]

Gilletarom wrote:

..NAV's text, is question of "flag" which, for a boundary, are attached either inside or outside, or anywhere.

If we agree, when the flag is raised, there is a grid, if the flag is not raised, there is no grid.

You will understand why, for several weeks, I hope that in "OD" items "Exclusion", "Inclusion" and "Neither" be replaced by "Grid Inside", "Grid outside" and "No grid". They are neutral concepts that have no other function than to say the 'state' flags.

And obviously, in WD, one can choose items that are not neutral. That's the strength of your two plugins. This leaves developers and users a great freedom of interpretation of the meaning attributed to the grid.

Note : Note, but not to "agenda" that we could have, in OD, "Grid ON" or "Grid OFF" for each of the two parts (inside and outside). So 4 possibilities. But we do currently have only 3 available.

Gille, I would be very happy to have them called

Grid inside
Grid outside
Grid none
or even Grib both

Why? because these expressions do explain the location (inside, outside) and condition (grid, no grid) without much difficulty (no graphics required) and perhaps less language confusion.

Of course we started out on a completely different foot. I can still recall the very first discussion about how to express an Inclusive boundary with grid outside. At the time I thought exclusive / inclusive was perfectly reasonable, and might have even suggested one of the terms. Then later "neither" and "any" were added.

I think that to make this change will require more work for everyone and thus will require buy-in from everyone involved, including Jon who will be doing the majority of the work! The plugin, the language files, and the User Documentation will all have to be changed. The User Documentation and User understanding will probably be increased (my opinion).

Is it a good time to do this, when the plugin is so close to release and people are ready to stop for awhile? Is there enough juice left so we can keep our eye on the ball to make this change?
--I will answer in hazard, I think maybe we should not, but put this good proposal into Tracker, so that we can implement it next iteration. Gille you certainly have my vote though.

Gilletarom, if this does not happen now, you could certainly implement these expressions in French now, and your users would be very happy. I do encourage you to do this. Then the english version could follow later.

I do like your attention to detail and concern about your users. It how good software is made.

I think with more use, we will discover how to simplify OD and WD.

[rgleason]

Originally Posted by jongough

Rick,
I have made some further changes to the document to clarify/correct it. I hope that it is understandable.

As for what to do with the content of it now, I am not sure. Perhaps it should be added as an appendix to both WD and OD documentation.

I think there is a need for some of this information to be made easily available to developers to help formulate a better way of handling interactions within the OCPN suite. Perhaps a 'messaging' section in the developers manual.

Jon

Jon, I think those are good improvements. I agree with making this available to other developers, and volunteer to find the right spot for a page in the Developer Manual, (if you would like). Also I think it should be at least an appendix to each plugin's documentation. OD, WD and WR?

Maybe we just make a single page in the User Manual and reference that everywhere Developer Manual, OD, WD, WR?
What should it be called? The name should be short and clear.
Which one is best in your judgement?
OD & WD Messages?
Plugin Messages?
OD & WD Communications?
Plugin Communications?

I've added and changed a few other things, see attached.

[rgleason]

Jon added your Messaging to
FS#1933 : Plugin Messaging Improvements & Efficiency - AIS so it does not impact program

[rgleason]

You can find patch 1.9.042 here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/63l4p0ahof...win32.exe?dl=

And referrencing Post 233 http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2058869

Sorry I was not clear that I had Ctrl+C copied the GUID and pasted. The alerts are now working properly showing both the Name and Description!

Thank you for the "AIS Guard Zone" that really helps me and eliminates some confusion.

Thank you. Jon. Great job.

[rgleason]

Boundary: A closed polygonal path constructed of boundary points and lines in 'two' dimensions with an inside and an outside. A boundary is planar, not warped, ignores the curvature of the earth, and has no z dimension.

OD permits Boundaries consisting of two points and two lines with no inside area. I even permits selection of "inclusive" although it may not have any practical purpose. In OD a boundary is not required to have 3 points, 3 lines and an area greater than 0.

A two point boundary will not hold many sheep or even many boats, but it might be very useful. Who can think of some uses? -Barriers, Blockades, etc. Send us some examples please.

-Jon can we fit this into the OD documentation, perhaps Gilletarom will find it useful after translation?
Thnks to Nav and Gille and Roger

[Gilletarom]

hello Rick Leason,

Originally Posted by rgleason

Jon, I think those are good improvements. ......

I've added and changed a few other things, see attached.

Hum .... When I open your last document, I see this ... (see screen copy)

Please, can you attach a version more legible ... Thank by advance.

Gilletarom.

[Gilletarom]

JonGough,
In the language file of WORD, there is the item: "boundary area". What part you specify the? Is it the inside area, the outside area ... or, something else?

[rgleason]

Here is Simple markup.

[NAV]

Originally Posted by Gilletarom

JonGough,
In the language file of WORD, there is the item: "boundary area". What part you specify the? Is it the inside area, the outside area ... or, something else?

It is used as (inside) area, after which the name of the area (if available) is added to show in one of the the windows.

Believe me: talking about an area, it's standard practice (navy, hydrography, offshore industry, aeronautical charts) that this means the area inside the boundary lines.

This is one of the reasons that my Dutch translations for 'boundary' are, depending on the context, either 'area' or 'area boundary'.

[NAV]

Originally Posted by Gilletarom

From there, I can ask a question NAV: You often use the word "zone" in your document. But this is misleading. We must be more specific and say:
- "Inside", when it's inside you speak.
- "Outside", when it is outside you speak.

In the presented text I speak about areas, not about zones. I don't see why this should be misleading. OD is about lines, points, straight lined areas and round areas. The fact that a single line is called a boundary too, is confusing, but is understandable from the view of a software engineer.

In OD, inside (exclusion area)) or outside (inclusion area) is only of importance for the location where you want to see the crosshatching of an area. Active or inactive changes the colours of the area.

In combination with WD:

1. inside is of importance for the 'AIS alarm' (any AIS object inside triggers the alarm to sound);
2. outside (related to inclusion): is mainly of importance for the 'area anchor alarm' (you want to stay within; as soon as you are outside the alarm will sound);
3. outside (related to exclusion): is mainly of importance for the boundary alarm, when you are approaching the boundary of an area (you want to stay outside; as soon as WD thinks there is a risk that you will enter the area the alarm will sound);
3. inclusion or exclusion or neither as flagged in WD is of importance for WD to analyse in which case an alarm should sound;
4. active or inactive or any is also of importance for WD to analyse in which case an alarm should sound.

(I hope I didn't make any errors above; describing what is happening remains confusing )

[NAV]

Originally Posted by rgleason

A two point boundary will not hold many sheep or even many boats, but it might be very useful. Who can think of some uses? -Barriers, Blockades, etc. Send us some examples please.

It might be useful, but it is definitely confusing. In fact, in my opinion (NOT a request!) it might even be skipped. You can always draw a rectangular area instead, if required (which can be made very narrow if required).

[NAV]

Jon,
The string 'Anchor Watch' seems not to be translated anymore and I can't find this string in CrowdIn, where things were updated if I'm correct (the large number of changes and resulting files are confusing too ).

[jongough]

Gilletarom,
In MS Word 2010 click on the 'Review' menu item, then make sure that beside 'Track Changes' is shows 'Final' not 'Final: Show Markup'. Or if you use Libre Office, click on 'Edit/Track Changes' and make sure that 'Show Changes' is not selected. That will hide all the changes that have been made to the document.

Jon

Originally Posted by Gilletarom

hello Rick Leason,


Hum .... When I open your last document, I see this ... (see screen copy)

Please, can you attach a version more legible ... Thank by advance.

Gilletarom.

[jongough]

NAV,
I am not sure of the value of a 'two point boundary' and I was going to get rid of it but I think someone wanted to keep it. It is still a closed boundary with an inside and an outside, BUT it has zero width so getting inside would be difficult. It also does not show the shading/hashes when it is an Inclusion boundary. Being an anomaly I may get rid of it in the next version.

Jon

Originally Posted by NAV

It might be useful, but it is definitely confusing. In fact, in my opinion (NOT a request!) it might even be skipped. You can always draw a rectangular area instead, if required (which can be made very narrow if required).

[jongough]

NAV,
The words 'Anchor Watch' are not in the current WD. I removed the term from the Boundary alarm and changed it to 'Inclusion Alarm' as users were finding it confusing. So the Inclusion Alarm is the Anchor Alarm, when you move out of the inclusion boundary the alarm will sound. It seemed that Anchor Watch is used only when you are within a certain distance of the anchor and direction does not matter. To me this is strange as I always seem to anchor in places where a circular alarm is no good and direction of the anchor most certainly is important.

I am hoping that the rate of change will slow down now as more understanding is gained of what OD and WD do, their interactions and how to use these.

Jon

Originally Posted by NAV

Jon,
The string 'Anchor Watch' seems not to be translated anymore and I can't find this string in CrowdIn, where things were updated if I'm correct (the large number of changes and resulting files are confusing too ).