[moneytalks] Beta: Idea, Ability to restrict view to check number order
- From: "Steve Zielinski" <steveziel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <moneytalks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:15:31 -0500
Hello all and MT staff,
Thanks Rob for your reply regarding the S key in status column. I've been
thinking for a while of the following possibility.
How about allowing a command to give a restricted view of all checks in check
number order. The program can search the item field, look for all items that
start with a digit and have no trailing blanks or spaces afterwards, then sort
them in numerical order, lowest to highest, and then restrict the view to these
results. Perhaps a person can even be allowed to sort the list in reverse
numerical order, but admittedly all they'd have to do is jump to the other end
of the restricted view with control plus home or end. Can this check-order
restricted register be printed or brailed? No embosser here to test for that.
I'm guessing it can, that any view of the register can be embossed or printed.
Is this so?
Reason for me thinking of this is that I have checks written at different times
with a reader. Though I write them in numerical order, I often mail them on
different dates. When I mail a given check, I update the date in the register
to the date I actually mailed the check. This way I am able to look at the
register and definitively know the day I mailed a given check. But this leads
to check orders being non-sequencial.
If this were implemented, it would also mean that for this particular
restricted view, the date column might be non-sequencial, and that would be
very different than usual in MT. But it would make it easy, for instance, for
a sighted reader or assistant to update a print register, if one keeps that for
a back up in print form.
Right now, I can limit check views by typing in the first few digits of a
check. For example, 81 typed in the item field shows all check from 810
through 819, but they are still out of numerical order. I can type 8 and get
all checks that are in the 800 range too, of course. But still out of order.
Just an idea. Any thoughts?
TIA
Steve
Other related posts: