Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />on3n5~ <br /> <br />Table 8 relates the various user interface architectures to the four need <br />categories discussed earlier, As can be concluded from the table. command line <br />and fonn based interfaces are considered to be moderately to highly applicable <br />to status viewing and reporting. In cases where this type of interface is needed <br />we recommend the forms based interface over the command line interface. For <br />more complex types of uses such as basin planning and river administration. <br />however, command line and forms based interfaces do not provide sufficient <br />flexibility and/or clarity. Especially in case of, for instance, multiple models to <br />be run consecutively. each with their own DMI and possibly an AMI linking <br />them together, command line and fonns based interfaces would not be <br />adequate': <br /> <br />Table 8: Alternative Architectures. User Interfaces. Comparisons <br /> <br />Interrace Type Status Reporting Basin River Admin <br />Planning <br />Command Line mod mod low low <br />Form Based high high low low <br />Interactive high high high high <br />Graphics <br /> <br />The previous analyses of each of the separate components for evaluating a <br />system architecture for CRDSS involved the following (remaining) categories: <br /> <br />4 needs: Status. Reporting, Basin Planning, and Water Rights Administration, <br /> <br />2 function architectures: Data Centered and Dedicated DSS <br /> <br />2 access architectures: Centralized. and Distributed. <br /> <br />2 user interfaces: Forms Based and Interactive Graphics. <br /> <br />Theoretically this would yield 4 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 32 different combinations <br />representing 32 different types of total system architectures. <br /> <br />However. since certain interfaces are tied to certain need categories (Table 9) <br />this complexity can be greatly reduced, Table 5.6, for instance. recommends <br />fonn-based interfaces for reporting/status uses on platforms were interactive <br />graphics are unattainable. and interactive graphics interfaces in all other cases. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />Table 9: Alternative Architectures Summary <br /> <br />Need User Interrace Comments <br />Architecture <br />Statu~Report Fonns/Graphic Recommended <br /> Imeractive/Graphic Recommended <br />Basin' PlanninglRiver Interactive/Graphic . Recommended <br />Administration <br /> <br />OAMES& MOORE/CAOSWES-44 <br />