Jump to content

CDiez

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About CDiez

  • Rank
    novice
  1. By the way... I don't have much experience with global fields, so I have to ask: In using global fields this way to collect users' search criteria, is there a problem with multiple users searching at the same time? I mean, how can I select one set of choices and someone else select a different set simultaneously, if it's a global field?
  2. Thanks! This builds on a method you suggested to me some months back when I was looking at this the first time (this is a part time project for me, so I work on it in pieces, and sometimes forget where I've been.. not ideal I know). I will go back to that and integrate your suggestion here, and I will keep in mind your suggestion to keep things simple. I have begun to appreciate that that is very good advice. Regards, C
  3. Hi, I am looking for a way to display to users their search parameters as they enter them in a number of FIND layouts. In my solution, users will perform searches by entering a number of search criteria (on different layouts) and "extending" the found set possibly multiple times (as they switch layouts, and as they "extend" the find criteria within a layout). But they won't go to a browse layout to view the search results until they are done "building" their search. I have scripted buttons to let them "extend" their search or "complete" the search and go to a browse results layout. I woul
  4. yes this is it! I have to step out now so I will have to study it later, but it looks like a very elegant solution. much obliged!! cheers, Carlos
  5. This sounds right.. but I can't seem to get it to work. Not sure I understand the relationship between this global text field and the records being searched. I added this global field to the table that holds all the records, and formatted it to show the checkbox set for the same value list that I use to select the value for each record, and in the "display data from" window I selected the field that contains those values for each record. Does that sound right?
  6. bcooney, Your last suggestion is exactly where I'm headed (I think). I appreciate your advice about keeping Find simple. But I'd like to give this a shot and see where it takes me. The only hangup is capturing just the values that the user selects when the value list is presented to them in a checkbox. What I need is a function sort of like ValueListItems, that returns selected values instead of all the values in the list. Would it make sense to reproduce the values from the list individually in separate fields, present each field as a 1-value checkbox (in browse), and then use your
  7. I like the idea of using tabs, but based on the previous post it would appear my whole approach is wrong, since doing a find on multiple values in checkboxes will search for records that have all the selected values (e.g., all records that have both FL "AND" NY for the state). Since what I want is all records with FL "OR" NY, my approach won't work. This means I'd have to string together a sequence of finds (extending each time). Is there a function to capture (in browse mode) all the the values selected in a checkbox field in which multiple values may be selected? If so, I may be
  8. You know.. I was so intrigued by the possibility of a solution from Stephen's suggestion that I didn't really think about what you meant. But based on what you say, my whole approach is wrong. So would it be possible to set up an interface allowing the user to select multiple checkboxes and then run the multiple find requests via a script? If so, how could I "collect" the user's choices for retrieval by the script? The values in the checkboxes come from a set of conditional value lists which are used to assign each record to a particular set of categories and subcategories. Thanks,
  9. Stephen, I stumped. First, I noticed in your solution that selecting multiple values in your checkbox 1 gives me all the relevant subchoices in box 2 (both browse and find modes). Not sure if this is the intended behavior. This is actually what is happening to me by default (with no script triggers or global fields), and what I need to change. What I'd like to do is have a script trigger that switches between layouts in FIND mode. The various layouts either show or don't show the 2nd and 3rd checkboxes. If the user selects 1 value in the 1st checkbox, I want them to see the 2nd box
  10. Thanks! I haven't had time to look at it yet but from your description it sounds like your method will do the trick or take me a good way towards what I want. Carlos
  11. Hi, My solution includes a set of conditional value lists for selecting a type and subtype for each record. Some of you have been a great help before with these value lists, but now I have a problem in find mode. For searches, I need to show the type and subtype values as checkboxes, because a search may include multiple types. However, if my search is for multiple types, I want to mask the subtype choices from the user. As an example, if the types are types of food, I might select fruit as the type and then strawberries and mangoes under subtypes. But if I select fruit and vegetable
  12. comment, I stumbled upon the solution, and thought I would post it here, in case anyone else has the same difficulty I had. I believe I had the wrong syntax in the auto-calc field for the 3rd level: it was pointing to the wrong TO. Now your "condVL2+clear2" solution seems to work exactly the way I need it to, so if you don't mind, I will borrow it for my properties project. Initially, I will use it to allow users to select the appropriate zoning district, based on the governing municipality, which is selected from a list based on the county selected. Also for property categories, types an
  13. comment: I feel bad that I had not realized you had already suggested a solution some months back when I first started wrestling with this. Sorry! I had to put the project aside and now I'm on it again, and I've been looking at the solution you shared then ("condVL2+clear2"). As I mentioned, my solution requires 3-level value lists, and I've been having difficulty modifying your solution to add the 3rd level. I was hoping you would be kind enough to take a look at what I've done (attached). I've been at it for hours with no success, but I'm sure you'll spot the problem in a minute.
  14. Thanks. I had already looked at that some months back and it didn't fully address the problem. Can't remember why (and I'm no longer subscribed so I can't view it again). I think I almost have it though. Just working through one last snag. I appreciate the reply...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.