My preference would be for an upper limit of more like 15-20 items per
list, but I like the idea.
15-20 would be ok if the names of the programs are more informative (not that it matters once you know what they do).
Logically, I tend to think of Medicine as a category under Life
Sciences, but perhaps the disproportionate number of potential entries
under Med warrant it's separation.
Medicine is applied life science much like Engineering is applied
science in general (including many medical topics). It might be
better to place various disciplines under life science such as:
Biology
Zoology
Medicine
Pharmacy
ect....
(which could be triggered using the above suggestion if the amount of
applications exceed a threshold value between 15 and 20 lets say)
Also, Statistics seems out of place under science. I would suggest
putting it in the tools section you mentioned before or under a
broader section such as "math tools" under science.
Yes, I agree as they tend to use other peoples data, but they do create
their own data and make many models which they test against to find
better ways of dealing with uncertainty. Besides, they create a
prodigious amount of interesting computer programs specific to their
discipline, and not all of them are tools. Some of these programs
belong in tools as well, but is there any harm in some poly functional
program being in two (or more) different menus?
> As an engineer, who is also a scientist (and many are not), I will defend
> the need for a separate menu item. In the future, when more academics learn
> how to program, we will have many more science programs to use, and at that
> point we can add subdivisions to these categories.
I'll agree that a separate menu item is warranted (especially for
things like CADand design programs), but does it belong under science?