Checkboxes on pre-printed forms

[LaRetta]

Hi everyone!

Well, I've searched for this on Forum and can't find an answer. It must be so simple that no one's every asked; however, I need an answer because I have forms to mail out. I have a pre-printed form (HCFA) which has two check boxes for M & F. I have an existing Value List displayed as checkboxes for M & F but I can't get them to line up with the form. Is there any way I can 'ungroup' them so I can move them further apart to match my form? The only other thing I can think of is to create two calcs to display them but before I do that, I just wanted to see if I have a better option. Any suggestions?

LaRetta

[BobWeaver]

In layout mode, select the checkbox field. Then go to the format menu and change the line spacing. That will give you quite a bit of adjustment. You can also change the font size.

[LaRetta]

Hi Bob!

Thanks for the suggestion! I tried adjusting the line spacing, alignment and also font size but can't move them apart enough ... even if I spread the field apart, both checkboxes stay the same distance apart. So I wrote two calcs (text, unstored) so I can place the fields where I wish:

Case(Client::Gender="M", "X","")

Case(Client::Gender="F", "X","")

Oh, I dislike pre-printed forms! Matching everything up is a real pain! Thanks for the ideas anyway. This is a Government form - maybe I can check into having it print directly onto pdf's of the HCFA1500.

LaRetta

[BobWeaver]

How far apart do they need to be? I tried a test by selecting a checkbox field and set the line spacing to 5 lines, and the items moved apart about an inch.

[LaRetta]

Oh thanks for responding Bob!

I tried adjusting the line spacing, but it only allows height (?). Or are you changing it somewhere else? I go to Format:Line Spacing and then Custom. Even changing it to height 5.00 lines, the checkboxes don't spread apart enough - they are side-by-side, and I spread the field WIDE apart! And they print the M & F, but I figured out how to change their font color to white. I'm using vs.6 but I wouldn't think that would make a difference.

LaRetta

[BobWeaver]

Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted them arranged vertically. I guess the line spacing won't work in that case. Maybe you could add some non-breaking spaces to each item in the value list to move them apart. But then you might have to strip them off again when you use the data from the field.

I think your idea of using two calcs is likely the simplest and most reliable.

[LaRetta]

Hi Bob!

Oh thanks for trying to help me anyway! Actually, I received a suggestion from CobaltSky and it works really well. I created two Value Lists. One Client::Gender and only put M and one Client::Gender and only put F. Then I selected the Client::Gender field for them both, but selected the Value List as above. I can put them anywhere I want!!! AND more importantly ... I don't have to create calcs

Someone may ask why I'd rather create a Value List than a calc! Well, I'm not sure although if Ray suggested it, I can trust that!! For me anyway, it's just that Field Definitions can get so long and confusing as it is (even with good naming conventions), and it seems I'm always in my field definitions, so I tend to be stingy about creating calcs at random. Value Lists, on the other hand, once created aren't really something I look at as often. Hmmm, maybe Value Lists take a bit less processor cycles also (?)

Anyway, if someone has the same problem I can assure them at a Value List works beautifully in this situation.

LaRetta

[CobaltSky]

A couple of additional value lists is likely a rather better idea than a couple of additional calcs in many situations.

To be clear, the solution I suggested in this case was to create two additional value lists, one with the value M (i.e. only one value) and the other with the value F, then place two separate copies of the field (i.e. the original field with M or F in it) onto the layout, attach the new ("M" only) value list to one copy and the new ("F" only) value list to the other copy. Once this is done, the two copies of the field can be positioned freely anywhere on the layout (as near or as far apart as desired) and each will display a single checkbox for only one of the corresponding (M or F) values present in the underlying field.

There are several reasons why this approach is better than using calculations. Calcs can be either stored or unstored. If they are stored then you end up writing and maintaining an extra 20,000 fields of data (in a file that has 10,000 records). If the calcs are unstored, you load the processor with thousands of additional calcs during every user session.

This is not a huge problem if the file is small, or if the number of extraneous calculations has not got out of hand. But as we all know (or soon discover) quick fixes using extra calcs have a habit of growing like weeds in a market garden and before you know it folks have got 137 of them and they can't even remember what most of them were there for...

By contrast, custom value lists are only stored once and are never either calculated or recalculated. A value list is also not instrinsically data driven (not specific to a particular field), so the one value list can sometimes be used for a number of different things simultanously. Thus it is a considerably cleaner and more efficient way to go.

The fact that, as you say, it also doesn't clutter up the fields dialogs (and as a developer you're likely to access the fields dialog more frequently than the value lists dialog) is just the icing on the cake. :cool:

[LaRetta]

Oh hello Ray!

Icing indeed! I had no idea that calcs (both stored and unstored) were so resource-hungry. I will most certainly take advantage of Value Lists whenever possible. I also have a bad habit of creating three calcs to accomplish one task. It's because I don't understand how to combine functions into one calc; for instance, wrapping Round() around:

Round((Year(Enrolments::FromDate) - Year(DOB) + ((Date(Month(Enrolments::FromDate), Day(Enrolments::FromDate), Year(DOB)) - Date(Month(DOB), Day(DOB), Year(DOB))) / 365)) * 4, 0) / 4.

This would have taken me three calcs to accomplish.

Thank God I have this Forum to test my calcs on, so I come up with the best ones!

LaRetta