jimurl
commented
4 years ago These look like some machine-collected data; they are at 4 digits of precision. Maybe it's part of a study of some equipment? who knows. I like that it's Switzerland, we want more from there! I can see where it would be useful for researchers to have the data on a directly per-measurement, depth basis. Those can be correlated with layers by the researchers. So it makes sense that we should collect it. but for display, I wonder if we should use only the per-layer density measurements to display in the final output. And/Or we could give the user the option of displaying the individual density items in the final output or not. Like a little select dropbox on the Densities tab that has three options: 1.Display densities on final graph from layers
- Display densities on final graph from these values ( Densities tab )3. Display both I'd need an explanatory help page to get folks understanding this ( in 4 languages, too,apparently ).
Collecting all those density measurements would still be useful for researchers ( even if it's not displayed), if they want to suck the data up, it's still there, in an xml format. Also from the core avscience database, though that would require a little processing.
if users enter density as part of layer info, and also in the 'Density' tab, the final graph gets double-written-over. Either we should pick one or the other, or warn the user about the conflict, or remove the 'density tab' after layer densities are entered, or just not double output the info if it will overwrite.