loophole - modifying sample setup

[Ben Buse]

Hi,

Today a good student managed to fall through a loophole when modifying sample setup. Instead of deleting the current element and adding a new element, they changed a current element e.g. Si to Al by selecting Si in the element list and changing it to Al - then pressing ok. This does not refresh the spectrometer, peak position, crystal information as that is toggled by a change in the spectrometer drop down list. The result was analyzing Al at the Si peak position. I wonder if this could be prevented by when the element is changed the spectrometer dropdown is changed to blank. Although much of it is down to proper training of users and every pitfall cannot be prevented.

Ben

[John Donovan]

Today a good student managed to fall through a loophole when modifying sample setup. Instead of deleting the current element and adding a new element, they changed a current element e.g. Si to Al by selecting Si in the element list and changing it to Al - then pressing ok. This does not refresh the spectrometer, peak position, crystal information as that is toggled by a change in the spectrometer drop down list. The result was analyzing Al at the Si peak position. I wonder if this could be prevented by when the element is changed the spectrometer dropdown is changed to blank. Although much of it is down to proper training of users and every pitfall cannot be prevented.

Didn't they see the big *red* warning in the log window that the peak position was very far out of normal limits?  E.g.,

Warning: On-peak position offset for al ka on spectrometer  1 is  38.7134

Sigh... I try to make the software "fool proof" but some students will find a way(!)  I will take a look.  The problem is that when the Elements/Cations dialog is loaded the first time for any element, even the correct element, it will cause a change event, so I can't use your suggestion unfortunately. That is, I don't want to bother the user with a warning because some spectrometers are rather out of alignment, so this warning would be generated constantly. 

Thanks. I will have to think about what is the best way to handle this particular "who-man" error.   

[Ben Buse]

Yes the red error is how we found it - which was really helpful. No I agree with you, an additional warning would be more a nuisance than a help. You learn by mistakes, and this can be avoided by training, given there isn't a simple check.

Thanks

Ben