Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.stsci.edu/ops/tof/tof_minutes/06-10-99_brainstorming Дата изменения: Fri Jun 11 00:51:01 1999 Дата индексирования: Sat Mar 1 16:34:25 2014 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: туманность андромеды

Brain storming session from 6/10/99 TOF meeting
-----------------------------------------------

Started with Andy's list of features for the TOF and divided them into
categories:

a) Features we definitely want to demonstrate or explain

b) Features we may want to present as options for the future

c) Features we don't want to bring up because they are
small, or obvious

d) Features we don't want to bring up period

e) Features on Andy's list that we didn't understand


Nick suggested that we think in terms of the main points we
want to make. His suggestions were:

VIEWS
DB COMMUNICATIONS
WIZARDS
CONSTRAINTS ON THE OBSERVATION (what is needed)
TOOLS
PERFORMANCE
LOOK AND FEEL

So I will use this outline to organize the items that we chose to
definitely address. Also note that I will include in parentheses the
numbers from Andy's last organization.

Features we definitely want to demonstrate or explain
-----------------------------------------------------

1. VIEWS

Multiple views (ASCII, Table, Graphical) available
for viewing as well as modifying (5.4+5.13)

VTT with access to datasets in archives (5.5+5.7)

ETC (1.3)

Ability to made and edit exposure groups

2. DB COMMUNICATIONS

Access to target coordinate catalogs and lists (1.6+5.3)

Access to execution status information from STScI (2.7)

3. WIZARDS

There should be "wizards" where possible (5.1)

Wizards should be be tunable (lots of help, little help)

There should be some canned strategies (4.1)

4. CONSTRAINTS ON THE OBSERVATION

Capture the "why" when appropriate (2.8)
*note this one we could not come to
consensus on in a timely manner*

5. TOOLS

Access to synphot (1.3)

Exposure layout optimizer w/ visibility into reasons (5.9+2.11)

Bright object checking (2.3)

Guide star checking (2.2)

Duplication checking (2.4)

6. PERFORMANCE

Graphical exposure time dinker with access to overheads (1.5)

Instantaneous scheduling feedback (1.4)

7. LOOK AND FEEL

Tight interface between software and documentation (1.1)

Tools can be run independently from the Phase 2 process
to answer questions - like in Phase 1 (1.2)

Traditional graphical manipulation conventions
- like cut and paste (5.6+5.11)

Consistent graphical conventions across all tools


8. OTHER ITEMS TO ADDRESS

Ease of installation (1.7)

How user gets software updates (1.11)

Level of portability (1.7)

Make as mission independent as possible (1.8+1.9)


Features we may want to present as options for the future
---------------------------------------------------------

Data mining (2.1)

Add ons to VTT (2.2)

Automated data pedigree (2.5)
where coordinates came from
what software version produced an exposure time

Can import another proposal as a starting point (2.9)
Including example proposals (4.1)

Software learns over time (4.6)


Features we don't want to bring up because they are small, or obvious
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Feedback button (1.10)

Store all data locally (1.12)

What-if capability (2.6)

Ability to obtain analysis on partially specified obs (2.10)

Uniform look and feel at Institute (3.1)


Features we don't want to bring up period
-----------------------------------------

PCs still available (5.8)

Develop model of user (5.10)

User provides .AFs (2.12)

Data simulators (3.2)

Notify the PC of trouble (3.3)

Guided help dependent on answers to questions already asked (4.3)

Trans-on-demand (4.4)

LRP and STS available to observers (4.5)

Hard proposals "announce" themselves (4.7)


Features on Andy's list that we didn't understand
-------------------------------------------------

The prop structure will be more open ended than today's model (5.2)

Interfaces we present will intuitively reflect models and
manipulations of the objects involved (5.12)