Re: L-date fields

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:15:00 +0600, "Kahn, David"
<KAHN@tengizchevroil.com> wrote:

>This logic is faulty. In the early years of the next century there will
>still be people alive who were born in the 19th century. You can't just
>default to the previous century if you're covering a period that spans
>more than a hundred years. Assume the current year is 2001. Based on a
>maximum human life span of 120 years the range of valid birth years
>(sliding window) will be 1881 - 2001. The user enters a DOB with a 2
>digit year of 52. It's a reasonable assumption that this is 1952 and
>there is no need to force the user to enter 4 digits for the year. The
>user enters a birth year of 97. This could be the DOB of a 4 year old
>born in 1997 or a 104 year old born in 1887. Assuming our database can
>encompass both these people (again, know your data) the program must now
>either force the user to enter the century or guess the century and
>force the user to confirm or reject the guess.
>
>Similarly, if the current year is 2050 and the user enters a birth year
>of 46, it's not safe to assume that this year is "in the past" therefore
>it must mean 2046. It could just as well mean 1946.

These are the reasons I don't like windowing schemes. They require
periodic updating. Who's to ensure proper business logic is
maintained? Who maintains the standards? What steps must be taken to
change said logic and standards? The only thing the computer can do in
these situations is to GUESS. They REQUIRE the user to validate the
data. THIS is why I want four digit years on the display. Sure, let
the computer guess, but make the users responsible for the data. How
many times have I heard "It's the computer" or "The computer screwed
up the dates"? Programs are only as intelligent as we are (for the
moment) and any potential screwups are easily avoidable by human
verification. 

Yes, this requires a LITTLE MORE EFFORT on the part of the users.
We've been plodding along with 2-digit years and the users have become
complacent with that fact. I can't remember any piece of software I've
ever used that didn't demand some effort on my part. Now just because
"the programmers" made assumptions about their systems and programs,
we're here to clean up after them. Is it really too much to ask for
the user to verify a date? I cannot possibly see how two digits will
cause so much hassle. Like I said before, people must take at least as
long to verify a date as to enter it correctly the first time.

I'm not at all against programming. Or work. Yes, I agree the MIS
staff is there for the benefit of the users, and not the other way
around (otherwise I wouldn't be in my job). But to fix the Y2K
problem, which is the task at hand, force the displays to four digits.
Force the users to enter the extra 2 characters. Make the transition
through 2000/1/1. THEN work on the windowing. But we must still stress
the users and data/entry is responsible for the correctness of the
inputted information.

 - lg -
Loyd Goodbar
MIS manager
Las Vegas Casino
Greenville  MS


--
A book: ...turn a page, read, read, read, read...
Television: ...click, watch, watch, watch, watch...
The Web: ...click, wait, wait, wait, wait, read...
lgoodbar@tecinfo.com  ICQ#504581  http://www.tecinfo.com/~lgoodbar/
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com
|    and specify 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---