|
»
»
»
[ANN] Texcodet v1.0 - Bar Codes without Fonts for FileMaker Pro
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
[ANN] Texcodet v1.0 - Bar Codes without Fonts for FileMaker Pro
by C. J. Weigand-2
::
Rate this Message:
Texcodet v1.0
Bar Codes without fonts for FileMaker Pro Bozrah, CT - July 21, 2008 - Life $uccess Institute is pleased to announce that Tecodet v1.0 is now shipping. Texcodet allows you to create variable-height, text-based bar codes from data stored in your FileMaker Pro databases. All bar codes are produced entirely without barcode fonts! The variable heights allow you to use the bar codes wherever vertical space is limited, such as on lists and small labels. There are NO plug- ins to cause compatibility problems, and NO scripts needed to generate the bar codes. Whether data is typed, pasted, or imported, the bar codes appear instantly. All files are also completely unlocked for user modification and the bar codes are easily integrated into existing systems. Texcodet includes all of the bar code types shown below. Code 39 - Alphanumeric bar codes Code 128 - Full ASCII alphanumeric bar codes Interleaved 2 of 5 - Numeric bar codes MSI Plessey - Numeric bar codes Code 93 - Full ASCII alphanumeric bar codes Code 11 - Numeric bar codes Code 25 - Numeric bar codes PostNET - U. S. postal bar codes Royal Mail - United Kingdom postal bar codes Texcodet is $99 and requires FileMaker Pro 9. To download a demo of the program, please visit www.LifeSuccess.org. ### Press Contact: C. J. Weigand Life $uccess Institute 356 Salem Turnpike Bozrah CT 06334-1518 1-860-886-7141 www.LifeSuccess.org Copyright 2008 Life $uccess Institute. All rights reserved. Texcodet is a trademark of Life $uccess Institute. FileMaker Pro is a registered trademark of FileMaker, Inc. _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by JimG_EasternMA
::
Rate this Message:
What's the simplest way to record multiple attributes of an object?
For example, let's say I have a file called Friends. For each Friend, zero more of the following may be true: - Likes pizza - Likes chess - Owns a skateboard - Wears glasses - Has grandchildren I'd like to be able to a.) easily enter this info, for example by putting an X in zero or more boxes, one box for each attribute; and b.) easily find Friends who had one or more of these attributes: E.g. everyone who likes both pizza and chess, who owns a skateboard, who (owns a skateboard, has grandchildren and likes pizza) ... etc. So far the best I've been able to come up with are five fields, one for each attribute, each with a radio button set including "Y and "N". So far I haven't seen any way to make use of FM's checkbox or repeating field features to make this work any more elegantly. Hopefully I've been missing something! As always, all help or suggestions are much appreciated. Cheers, Jim Guinness _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by John Valean Baily
::
Rate this Message:
> What's the simplest way to record multiple attributes of an object?
> > > - Likes pizza > - Likes chess > - Owns a skateboard > - Wears glasses > - Has grandchildren > How about one field with five check box options each check box listed as above... John Valean Baily ---------------------------- Powered by Execulink Webmail http://www.execulink.com/ _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Bart Bartholomay
::
Rate this Message:
Jim -
The most flexible way of doing it is to create another table and create a relationship to it via a person's ID#. In the related table you can easily define a variable type (pizza, beer, magazines, skateboards, etc.) and a value field (Yes/No). It's then quite easy to search in this table for matches and draw off of the results the Names of the people whose records were found. BTW, if you allow records to be created in the second table (though a portal with Allow Creation of Records checked) then you can also select current variable in a dropdown and then whether or not they are Yes or No, or you can add a new variable simply by typing it's value in the dropdown field. Lots of ways to do it. Bart On Jul 20, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Jim Guinness wrote: > What's the simplest way to record multiple attributes of an object? > > For example, let's say I have a file called Friends. For each > Friend, zero more of the following may be true: > > - Likes pizza > - Likes chess > - Owns a skateboard > - Wears glasses > - Has grandchildren > > I'd like to be able to > > a.) easily enter this info, for example by putting an X in zero or > more boxes, one box for each attribute; and > > b.) easily find Friends who had one or more of these attributes: > E.g. everyone who likes both pizza and chess, who owns a skateboard, > who (owns a skateboard, has grandchildren and likes pizza) ... etc. > > So far the best I've been able to come up with are five fields, one > for each attribute, each with a radio button set including "Y and > "N". So far I haven't seen any way to make use of FM's checkbox or > repeating field features to make this work any more elegantly. > > Hopefully I've been missing something! As always, all help or > suggestions are much appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Jim Guinness > > _______________________________________________ > FMPexperts mailing list > FMPexperts@... > http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Steve Cassidy-3
::
Rate this Message:
Jim
If a checkbox-formatted text field doesn't work for you, I think you may need to define some of your terms or conditions more clearly... There are problems with using Filemaker's checkboxes, but I don't think anything in your requirements precludes their use. What are the limitations? Well, I think there a quite a few. (Never use the buggers myself!) First, how are you going to define your attributes? If there is a fixed and unchanging set (eg male, female), then Filemaker checkboxes will probably be just fine. If you need to add to the set regularly, there may not be much problem. If users have the possibility of changing already used attributes, then things get very sticky -- how do you do a find on an attribute that no longer exists in the value list?) Next, how many attributes are there in total? If there are hundreds but each record only requires one or two to be checked, then you've got a lot of wasted space on your layout... Then there's the actual process of modifying the list of attributes. Either you allow users to enter values into the value list manually, or you base the value list on a field in a special and then develop a management scheme for that table. The first is simple but places no limits on the changes users can make. The second can become quite involved and the programming probably wouldn't fit your 'easily' requirement... Maybe you can tell us more about exactly what you want to achieve and why a checkbox formatted field won't do it? Steve On 20 Jul 2008, at 18:53, Jim Guinness wrote: > What's the simplest way to record multiple attributes of an object? > > For example, let's say I have a file called Friends. For each > Friend, zero more of the following may be true: > > - Likes pizza > - Likes chess > - Owns a skateboard > - Wears glasses > - Has grandchildren > > I'd like to be able to > > a.) easily enter this info, for example by putting an X in zero or > more boxes, one box for each attribute; and > > b.) easily find Friends who had one or more of these attributes: > E.g. everyone who likes both pizza and chess, who owns a > skateboard, who (owns a skateboard, has grandchildren and likes > pizza) ... etc. > > So far the best I've been able to come up with are five fields, one > for each attribute, each with a radio button set including "Y and > "N". So far I haven't seen any way to make use of FM's checkbox or > repeating field features to make this work any more elegantly. _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: [ANN] Texcodet v1.0 - Bar Codes without Fonts for FileMaker Pro
by LegacyUSA
::
Rate this Message:
C.J.
Do you have developer agreement or licensing?
Ray
LegacyUSA
Bakery Software
Print Estimating Software
|
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by JimG_EasternMA
::
Rate this Message:
At 7/20/2008 02:17 PM, you wrote:
>Maybe you can tell us more about exactly what you want to achieve and >why a checkbox formatted field won't do it? > >Steve Yes, my explanation was incomplete. What I'd like are checkboxes where, if a user wanted to find all records that had only A checked, he could check box A on the Find screen, and the records he sought would be found. Instead, Find finds records where A is checked, but B, C, D, and/or E might also be. I realize there are ways you could get FM to find the ones with only A checked, but not as intuitively for a naive user as what I've described here. (Unless I'm missing something.) Or I suppose you could make the Find'ing intuitive for the user by doing something really kludge-y in the design, like having a separate checkbox field for each attribute, each field associated with a value list consisting of exactly one element ... or something. And apparently what I'm looking for could be accomplished by using a related file (as was suggested here) and/or some non-trivial scripting. For now, though, I'm looking for quick and simple solutions. Among the alternatives I've been able to imagine so far, a Yes/No radio button field for each attribute seems like the least unsatisfying solution. :-/ Although I suppose I should put that a little more positively, since overall I think FM is really pretty nifty. ;-) Jim Guinness _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Eureka!! (??) (Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie))
by JimG_EasternMA
::
Rate this Message:
At 7/21/2008 12:32 AM, I wrote:
>Or I suppose you could make the Find'ing intuitive for the user by doing >something really kludge-y in the design, like having a separate checkbox >field for each attribute, each field associated with a value list consisting >of exactly one element ... or something. But wait ... each attribute field could be associated with the same one-member value "list" consisting of just the letter "Y" (or the word "Yes".) So the possible values of each field would be either "Y" or "" (empty.) I think that'd work. Jim Guinness _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Bob Patin
::
Rate this Message:
Quick and simple would be a handful of fields, one for each attribute.
Every time you add another attribute though, you'd have to add another field. Done right, you'd have a related table of attributes, so that your system would expand over time. Each time you add an attribute to a user record, you'd actually be creating a record in a related table. To go along with it, you could have a search layout that had checkboxes for each of the various attributes that are entered (so far) into the database. That way, if you had red, green blue, yellow, you'd see 4 checkboxes. Add purple to a record and you'd have a 5th checkbox on the search layout. Not quick & dirty though, would take an hour or so to set up; as you'll see if you keep working with FileMaker, its simplicity is deceptive--you can write quick databases that will do some nice things, but after spending some time with it you'll start to realize its power. Bob Patin Longterm Solutions bob@... 615-333-6858 http://www.longtermsolutions.com iChat: bobpatin AIM: longterm1954 FileMaker 9 Certified Developer Member of FileMaker Business Alliance and FileMaker TechNet -------------------------- FileMaker hosting and consulting for all versions of FileMaker PHP • Full email services • Free DNS hosting • Colocation • Consulting On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:32 PM, Jim Guinness wrote: > And apparently what I'm looking for could be accomplished by using a > related file (as was suggested here) and/or some non-trivial > scripting. For now, though, I'm looking for quick and simple > solutions. > > Among the alternatives I've been able to imagine so far, a Yes/No > radio button field for each attribute seems like the least > unsatisfying solution. :-/ Although I suppose I should put that > a little more positively, since overall I think FM is really pretty > nifty. ;-) _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Steve Cassidy-3
::
Rate this Message:
On 21 Jul 2008, at 05:32, Jim Guinness wrote: > Yes, my explanation was incomplete. > > What I'd like are checkboxes where, if a user wanted to find all > records that had only A checked, he could check box A on the Find > screen, and the records he sought would be found. Instead, Find > finds records where A is checked, but B, C, D, and/or E might also be. > > I realize there are ways you could get FM to find the ones with > only A checked, but not as intuitively for a naive user as what > I've described here. (Unless I'm missing something.) Jim Indeed, incomplete! So you are suggesting that ALL your searches would exclude records where additional attributes (as compared with the search attributes) are selected, right? Is this the only type of search you want to easily accomplish, or is the user to have a choice (ie a choice of finding records where ONLY A is checked or where A and some other attribute is checked)? Obviously, there is a massive range of variants of AND and OR searches possible in data such as your sample. Filemaker does not allow for all of them right out of the box. To find records where only the one attribute is selected, I think you could do something like this (relatively simple): - User input via a checkbox formatted field. - Search criterion (there's only one!) input into global field via a popup menu using the same value list. - Simple script for the find that adds the exact match operator (==) in front of the search criterion or uses the literal string operator (""). This will work for the simple case. And of course, rather than scripting it you could teach users to do it manually. But I suspect also you want users to be able to select A and C as search criteria and find records where both A and C are checked (but not B). This starts to get a bit more complex, particularly as the values in a checkbox-formatted field are entered in the chronological order in which the boxes are checked. (And I assume you wouldn't want to find records in which A and C were checked in a particular order...). Really, in order to give the user a simple interface for this, you'd have to do some slightly more complex scripting. Basically you'd have to write a script that took the input set of search criteria from somewhere (could be a global formatted with the same checkboxes) and formatted it so that each criterion was enclosed in the literal string operator In the end, I don't think it's possible to have both a simple interface (for users) that accomplishes all types of search at the same time as a simple (or non-existent) behind-the-scenes structure. Someone is going to have to do some work -- either the users or the programmer! HTH a little. Steve _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Steve Cassidy-3
::
Rate this Message:
Sorry, that wouldn't work would it! This find would require a bit
more work... Steve On 21 Jul 2008, at 10:07, Steve Cassidy wrote: > Basically you'd have to write a script that took the input set of > search criteria from somewhere (could be a global formatted with > the same checkboxes) and formatted it so that each criterion was > enclosed in the literal string operator _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Beverly Voth-2
::
Rate this Message:
Not so hard if the VALUES are simple (single words).
Create a global and format with same checkboxes. 1. User checks values in global 2. Enter Find Mode [] 3. Set Field [ yourField; Case ( ValueCount ( yourGlobal ) > 1 ; Substitute ( yourGlobal ; "\r" ; " " ) ; "==" & yourGlobal ) 4. Perform Find [] I have not tested for multiple word values nor for partial word values (red = red or redd ?) But perhaps this gives you a starting point? -- Beverly Voth mailto:bvoth@... tel:(606) 864-0041 -- On Jul 21, 2008, at 5:07 AM, Steve Cassidy <scass@...> wrote: > > On 21 Jul 2008, at 05:32, Jim Guinness wrote: > >> Yes, my explanation was incomplete. >> >> What I'd like are checkboxes where, if a user wanted to find all >> records that had only A checked, he could check box A on the Find >> screen, and the records he sought would be found. Instead, Find >> finds records where A is checked, but B, C, D, and/or E might also >> be. >> >> I realize there are ways you could get FM to find the ones with >> only A checked, but not as intuitively for a naive user as what >> I've described here. (Unless I'm missing something.) > > Jim > > Indeed, incomplete! > > So you are suggesting that ALL your searches would exclude records > where additional attributes (as compared with the search attributes) > are selected, right? > > Is this the only type of search you want to easily accomplish, or is > the user to have a choice (ie a choice of finding records where ONLY > A is checked or where A and some other attribute is checked)? > Obviously, there is a massive range of variants of AND and OR > searches possible in data such as your sample. Filemaker does not > allow for all of them right out of the box. > > To find records where only the one attribute is selected, I think > you could do something like this (relatively simple): > > - User input via a checkbox formatted field. > - Search criterion (there's only one!) input into global field via a > popup menu using the same value list. > - Simple script for the find that adds the exact match operator (==) > in front of the search criterion or uses the literal string operator > (""). > > This will work for the simple case. And of course, rather than > scripting it you could teach users to do it manually. But I suspect > also you want users to be able to select A and C as search criteria > and find records where both A and C are checked (but not B). This > starts to get a bit more complex, particularly as the values in a > checkbox-formatted field are entered in the chronological order in > which the boxes are checked. (And I assume you wouldn't want to find > records in which A and C were checked in a particular order...). > Really, in order to give the user a simple interface for this, you'd > have to do some slightly more complex scripting. Basically you'd > have to write a script that took the input set of search criteria > from somewhere (could be a global formatted with the same > checkboxes) and formatted it so that each criterion was enclosed in > the literal string operator > > In the end, I don't think it's possible to have both a simple > interface (for users) that accomplishes all types of search at the > same time as a simple (or non-existent) behind-the-scenes structure. > Someone is going to have to do some work -- either the users or the > programmer! > > HTH a little. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > FMPexperts mailing list > FMPexperts@... > http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Steve Cassidy-3
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Beverly!
On 21 Jul 2008, at 11:05, Beverly Voth wrote: > Not so hard if the VALUES are simple (single words). Jim's original question was about multiple words, I'm afraid... > Create a global and format with same checkboxes. > > 1. User checks values in global > 2. Enter Find Mode [] > 3. Set Field [ yourField; Case ( ValueCount ( yourGlobal ) > 1 ; > Substitute ( yourGlobal ; "\r" ; " " ) ; "==" & yourGlobal ) > 4. Perform Find [] > > I have not tested for multiple word values nor for partial word > values (red = red or redd ?) But perhaps this gives you a starting > point? Doesn't this depend on the checkboxes being checked in the same order, though? Steve _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie)
by Steve Cassidy-3
::
Rate this Message:
Beverly
I misunderstood this, I guess. It doesn't depend on the order that the boxes are checked. \r means the paragraph symbol (pilcrow) right? However, it does return records where checkboxes other than the ones checked in the global field are checked. So, a record with the following entries in the checkbox field: Eats dogs Has grey hair Eats pizza Will be found when the search criteria in the global checkbox field are: Has grey hair Eats dogs The point is to return only records where the search criteria are the only checked boxes. I think it would also return results where one attribute contains another. So a record with the following entries: Likes pizza Likes dogs Will be found when the search is: Pizza Likes dogs Some awkward scripting would be needed to get exact matches on individual entries while excluding records where additional entries are checked. The problem seemed easy until Jim defined it fully ;) Steve On 21 Jul 2008, at 11:05, Beverly Voth wrote: > Not so hard if the VALUES are simple (single words). > > Create a global and format with same checkboxes. > > 1. User checks values in global > 2. Enter Find Mode [] > 3. Set Field [ yourField; Case ( ValueCount ( yourGlobal ) > 1 ; > Substitute ( yourGlobal ; "\r" ; " " ) ; "==" & yourGlobal ) > 4. Perform Find [] > > I have not tested for multiple word values nor for partial word > values (red = red or redd ?) But perhaps this gives you a starting > point? _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
Re: Eureka!! (??) (Re: Recording multiple attributes (newbie))
by Ken Newell
::
Rate this Message:
You could also make the attribute field a number filed that contains
the number 1 if selected. If you need to display a "text" label a field on the layout could be formated as Boolan to display Yes for selected and No for not selected. In cases like this I'm a fan of using the number 1 rather than a text field. Ken Newell FileMaker 7 Certified Developer Programmer/Analyst newell@... (858) 822-4348 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. On Jul 20, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Jim Guinness wrote: > At 7/21/2008 12:32 AM, I wrote: > >Or I suppose you could make the Find'ing intuitive for the user by > doing > >something really kludge-y in the design, like having a separate > checkbox > >field for each attribute, each field associated with a value list > consisting > >of exactly one element ... or something. > > But wait ... each attribute field could be associated with the same > one-member value "list" consisting of just the letter "Y" (or the > word "Yes".) So the possible values of each field would be either > "Y" or "" (empty.) > > I think that'd work. > > Jim Guinness > > _______________________________________________ > FMPexperts mailing list > FMPexperts@... > http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au > _______________________________________________ FMPexperts mailing list FMPexperts@... http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au |
|
|
|
