Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!hci!gilbert
From: gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Human Interfaces to Database Systems
Message-ID: <120@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14-Sep-87 12:36:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: glenlive.120
Posted: Mon Sep 14 12:36:37 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Sep-87 04:21:37 EDT
References: <1275@geac.UUCP>
Reply-To: gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Scottish HCI Centre
Lines: 22
Xref: mnetor comp.databases:491 comp.cog-eng:243

In article <1275@geac.UUCP> david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes:
>
>Minimal requirements would be:
>
>	There is a clear division between the presentation and
>	application interfaces.

Sure you want this? Field validation by definition is
application-dependent. Perhaps what you want is a good two-way
interface between the forms manager and the back-end database. Most UI
software only handles the UI->back-end mappings, making good semantic
feedback impossible.

P.S. - a clear division needs bridging - what's your bridge going to
       be? If you want to talk to someone, you need to know something
       about them.  Strict separability only matters for prototyping,
       customisation and multiple UIs. Otherwise the cost of
       separability is not balanced by any major gains.
-- 
   Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN
   JANET:  gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci    ARPA:   gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
		UUCP:	..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hwcs!hci!gilbert