This is a feature specifically requested by the Savage Lab. The issue was that a user wanted to specify 4 replicates of 6 light conditions, and didn't want the 4 replicates scattered all around.
In LPIv2.0, we had a feature that allowed this, which I propose we revive. Although it's a clunky thing to add to the interface, I don't see any better solutions. If we really want to grasp at an alternative though, we could imagine inferring from the inputs which style (row-wise or column-wise) would be more appropriate for a given program (e.g. if 4 replicates, then column-wise). My issues with this are: (1) it makes Iris' functionality more opaque to the user, (2) it makes assumptions about the user's program that may be inaccurate, and (3) it limits the user's control over their program.
To be fair, this issue is literally only a problem with specifying 4 replicates of 6 conditions, but this is not as uncommon as it sounds for a 24-well plate.
This is a feature specifically requested by the Savage Lab. The issue was that a user wanted to specify 4 replicates of 6 light conditions, and didn't want the 4 replicates scattered all around.
In LPIv2.0, we had a feature that allowed this, which I propose we revive. Although it's a clunky thing to add to the interface, I don't see any better solutions. If we really want to grasp at an alternative though, we could imagine inferring from the inputs which style (row-wise or column-wise) would be more appropriate for a given program (e.g. if 4 replicates, then column-wise). My issues with this are: (1) it makes Iris' functionality more opaque to the user, (2) it makes assumptions about the user's program that may be inaccurate, and (3) it limits the user's control over their program.
To be fair, this issue is literally only a problem with specifying 4 replicates of 6 conditions, but this is not as uncommon as it sounds for a 24-well plate.