mac How can i make horizontal list view? -

[Pershman]

Can somebody help me with decision of one problem? -

 

I have data in different tables with different dates, but i need to place them all in one layout like a map. So 2009 year - it's first column, 2010 year - it's second column, 2011 year -it's third column and so on. So as you understand i can't do this with List View, because all dates come under each other, not left to right.

 

 

[Wim Decorte]

place portals side by side and filter each one for a different year.

Or do some research into the Virtual List technique and collect the data per year in one field, one field per year

[comment]

So 2009 year - it's first column, 2010 year - it's second column, 2011 year -it's third column and so on.

 

There can be no "and so on" here. Filemaker is not flexible in the horizontal direction, and there is no mechanism that would allow you the add columns dynamically to the layout as needed. What you can do is set a fixed number of columns (for example portals, as suggested by Wim) and simulate a horizontal scroll by dynamically populating the columns (for example by filtering the portals - see an example here: http://fmforums.com/forum/topic/71939-getting-more-out-of-filtered-portals-4horizontal-portal/).

 

 

 

I have data in different tables with different dates

That's probably a mistake. It sounds like the data should be all in the same table.

[MikeKD]

I'd use the portal route, maybe filtered for a field for current year / last year / 2 years ago.

 

I was wondering though - could you use a list view with repeating fields? (I've never used repeating fields & have no imminent reason to; just curios!)

[comment]

I was wondering though - could you use a list view with repeating fields?

 

You mean repeating calculation fields. Could be. It depends on what you have and what do you want to do with it. OP wasn't particularly clear on either.

[MikeKD]

As far as I can tell, repeating fields aren't much recommended for anything except single tables.

I don't think my FTS book even mentions them!!

[comment]

repeating fields aren't much recommended

 

I am sorry, but that's not something I can relate to, either way. Repeating fields are a tool. Put it in your toolbox and use it when it fits the job.

[MikeKD]

Thanks; that sounds sensible advice!

[bruceR]

I agree with comment that repeats can be quite useful.

 

But it has become very routine to warn against them, and we don't have a comprehensive list of practical and  imaginative uses for them.

[Rick Whitelaw]

I tend to find repeating fields very useful and easy to implement for strictly display purposes. However that doesn't represent the only utility of repeating fields. It takes a bit more work to use them on a data level, but I have done so without reservation. A repeating field with 8 repetitions is, in some ways, less cumbersome than 8 different fields if the situation fits.

[comment]

 A repeating field with 8 repetitions is, in some ways, less cumbersome than 8 different fields

 

Well, in most cases a repeating field with 8 repetitions is preferable to 8 individual fields, AND 8 (or any number of) related records are preferable to the repeating field... But "in most cases" is not "always" -  so it pays not to become dogmatic about this.

 

[Ocean West]

let's please stay on topic.

[Rick Whitelaw]

This is off topic.

Threads wander off topic all the time. While I agree every effort should be made to stay on topic I'm quite surprised that certain posts to this thread have been deleted, including one of mine that, while not being strictly on topic, was not at all objectionable and was in fact a response to a post that was already (and still is) in the thread.

[Ocean West]

It's not often that I have to pull rank and curate this discussion (my least favorite duty)

 

I have had several members - who participated and who hadn't participated in the discussion - prompting me to keep an eye on the discussion.

 

I had to make the decision to remove posts that quoted or referenced prior posts - or would be out of context if remained (apologies if your post was included ) 

- these posts were all removed as apart of a devolving discussion - 

[Rick Whitelaw]

All good, Stephen. Now back to what matters!

[David Jondreau]

Thanks Steve! I support heavy moderation.*

 

An excellent take on online community management:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

 

*Feel free to delete this post since it's not on topic.

[Lee Smith]

There is also this, that we all agreed to at the time of joining. FM Forums - Terms of Service