[Kmymoney-devel] Re: [Bug 241855] Reconciliation wizard fails to calculate correct difference

[Alvaro Soliverez]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:23 PM, allan <aganderson at ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/09/10 16:07, Alvaro Soliverez wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jack <ostroffjh at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>> On 2010.09.29 10:09, Alvaro Soliverez wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Houlden <djhoulden at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does make sense, but I'm not sure "None" would help anyone who
>>>> does
>>>>>> not already know how reconciliation works.  In the transaction
>>>> form,
>>>>>> the field label is "Status" so would a more explicit "Not set"
>>>> work?
>>>>>> I'm trying to think about the new user who does not yet understand
>>>> how
>>>>>> reconciliation works.  The values of the field are "reconciled" or
>>>>>> "cleared" or something else, but the third one isn't really another
>>>>>> value, it just hasn't been set to one of the first two.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Not set" sounds good. In the status filter selection list it
>>>> appears
>>>>> as "Not marked".
>>>>> So what would Alvaro's new message in the reconciliation wizard be?
>>>> I'm not
>>>>> sure exactly what information or condition it is trying to convey
>>>> to the
>>>>> user.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then it would be "Oldest not set transaction" It intends to offer
>>>> information on what transactions were used to get to the starting
>>>> balance.
>>>
>>> Is there enough room to say "Oldest transaction not set to reconciled
>>> or cleared" or "Oldest transaction not marked as reconciled or cleared"
>>> ?  The shorter version is OK, but I think the longer one would help new
>>> users more.
>>
>> I would stay away from long texts. We've been already criticized on
>> that wizard due to long texts that nobody actually reads.
>
> How about 'oldest transaction needing to be reconciled'?
>

'oldest unmarked transaction'?