Have "amber" colour for just-over BG

In the Entries Diary (both in the app and online), BG values above the target are shown in red. Assuming a target range of 4.5 to 7.5, this means that a BG of 7.4 will be white/green but one of 7.6 will be red, whereas in reality these readings are approximately the same. Also, a BG of 7.6 will be red but so will one of 19.6 - but there's a huge difference in the severity of the situation. I suggest that there could be a yellow range immediately above the target range. The yellow range could reasonably be the same width as the target range (to save having too many more config parameters), so that with the default target range of 4.5 to 7.5, any value between 7.6 and 10.5 would be yellow while any value above 10.5 would be red.

What do others think? Do you think this is a good or a bad idea?

This is a brilliant suggestion. It is difficult enough to maintain good levels with out having a system tell you whether you are good or bad, especially as you suggest, there can be a minute difference between the two. Maybe the amber level could also be used for levels between say 4.5 and 5.5.

Hi,

I like the idea, but as a dev I'm guessing the database behind isn't geared up for this extra range/data, might be a bit of work.

Amber/Yellow results, would they have their own section in the graphs etc.. I can see this being widespread and possibly alot of work, but I'm sure Simons up for the challenge

This might be completely wrong and really easy to implement, just my 2p

Phil

P.S I even had colour scales like this on an Excel spreadsheet I used to use before this site was available, had Amber, then Red then Purple/Burgundy for really bad results, tried not to get these

Sounds like an good idea to me............

Even just the silly, small things can make a positive difference to the diary experience............

Thanks for your replies. Nobody has so far said it is not a good idea, which is encouraging.

I can assure Phil that no change to the database will be needed. It is just a matter of presentation.

Podarcis,

I know it may seem like only presentation, but a range of values for the amber colour is most likely needed and as a developer I would assume that this would be best placed in the database, possibly configurable like the ranges we already have. What I was saying is sometimes a little presentation tweak can mean a vast change behind the scenes if the data structures aren't setup for it. I don't work on the site so am only guessing, you may know better than me, I was trying to set people's expectations.

Even if it is a lot of work, I still agree its a good idea

Phil

Yes, I accept you're right - there's more than one way to do this, and it's not up to me to decide how it's done.

But there is a way that potentially doesn't require any database changes. Simply use yellow for values above the target range but no more than the width of the target range higher than the upper limit.

I was thinking of that solution when I proposed this, but I agree that a more sophisticated solution may provide more flexibility and could be considered.

Sorry I think this is a bad idea, but if others want it then maybe Simon can implement it as an option. I accept that 7.4 and 7.6 are pretty much then same but a reading of 10.5 is not for me amber its red. I think since there is no evidence of 'less severe' levels outside the suggested 'DAFNE range' then anything outside is red. That said I don't worry about the colours, its a lot more complicated than Green, Amber, Red. I could be in the 'Green' the whole time and suffer problems or be in the Red the whole time and never have a problem. I don't think its worth people discussing the difficulty of implementation, thats not relevant to people wanting it or not.

Well, Mark, I can tell you that evidence DOES exist, and here it is. For me, I can manage with a BG level of 7.6 or even 10.5 without any correction and nothing bad will happen. But I can't manage a level BG of 19.6 without any correction, since things would get very bad if I did. I need a correction of some +6 units for a BG of 19.6, and ignoring that correction would NOT be a good idea.

Let me say that in practice I would correct both 7.6 and 10.5: 7.6 with +1 unit and 10.5 with +2 units. But for me this is an amber situation, and I could ignore it without danger.

When I say 'evidence' I am referring to research to investigate something not personal opinion which is not medical evidence, it is one persons opinion. It is clear you believe it is a good idea and correspondingly clear I do not. As I said Simon may well implement it but I believe it should be an option that a user turns off
or on because it does not form part of the DAFNE programme or course which is generally what people on this site are looking to follow,