Re: [WriteLog] What should change in WriteLog w.r.t. this review?

[Jerry Pixton <jpixton@shentel.net>]

Wayne, et al

Comments interspersed.


At 02:29 AM 2/5/2004 +0000, W. Wright, W5XD wrote:
> I am interested in what current WriteLog users think might be changed in
> WriteLog with respect to the comparison in this review:



> The specific points I wonder if I should pursue further are:
>
> 1. The reviewer thinks that "modes" in the program are good. That the
> program should change its response to certain keystrokes based on whether it
> is in the S&P mode or the Run mode. It has been my opinion for a very long
> time that modes cause more problems than they solve?


No, I want the WL interface to be consistent. I take care of having a 
different response for Running and S&P if I want by setting up different 
messages. And I have standardized on just that for the past year. I may 
call CQ on a clear spot to test the waters right in the middle of S&P. I 
don't want the software second guessing what my intent is. It will always 
be WRONG.



> 2. zooming of the bandmap. how useful is this to you?


No, useless. I can set the pixel size right now for whatever seems useful 
and how big I want the window to be on my screen so I have all the control 
needed anyway.



> 3. The reviewer takes away points from WL because its windows can be docked
> instead of floating on the desktop. Surely I should not remove this feature
> from WL?

Leave it alone.

The user has their choice of docked or floating windows right now so you 
can do whatever pleases you. I would not like to have just one choice - say 
all docked. I use lots of floating windows! But occasionally I will dock 
one because for that contest there is extra space.


> 4. The review takes away points from WL because we don't update the software
> in real time during contest weekends and "updates come out infrequently". I
> have been reasonably happy with our beta test/release process (which
> routinely catches a number of bugs before they go out to thousands of
> users), but that process pretty much guarantees that from a request to a
> commercial release is a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks as that's how long it takes
> to get through the beta test process. Would users really prefer that the
> beta tests be publically available?

Keep your system of beta testing. It works just fine. I don't expect 
changes often because they would just be the wishes of a vocal minority. 
When something was critical to an upcoming contest, you have been very 
responsive to fix a "dead in the water" type problem.

This is production software not a sandbox. I am sick of beta testing for 
Microsoft!

When I download a large program I expect some assurance that it will work. 
And I am going to install it several weeks before a major contest. And I 
use it before hand to see what is new and try out new features to see if I 
want to use them. I would never change software during a contest. I am 
getting so I don't even turn off the computers at night during a contest. 
The other nite I turned off my Linear at night and it would not power up 
the next morning.




> 5. The reviewer had 3 or 4 month old information regarding the way we manage
> the country files and multiplier files, so his specific complaints are
> inaccurate, but it still raises the question of how that should be done. The
> WriteLog FULL distributions have copies of those files that were current
> when the distribution was created, and the UPGRADE distributions do NOT have
> the files at all. This means that you have to download the new files, and
> you get notices on writelog@contesting.com when they change. I don't think
> its a good idea to embed those files in the UPGRADE installs because I think
> there should be exactly one way for a user to get the latest files and some
> users don't upgrade right before the contest, and some users upgrade their
> software, but not necessarily to the most recent version (and so would get
> old files if the UPGRADE had them).

Keep it the way it is.

The issue here is what caused me to try to keep the namedmul.ini file 
current for every one. We all update these files at our convenience. When 
you load a Full distribution once a year you can clean up after it if you 
don't like the  files it loaded. But with just an upgrade, I don't want the 
upgrade writing over files that I have just made the way I want them. That 
is, again don't second guess the user- you will always be wrong.



> I invite email comments to any or all of the above, either direct or on the
> reflector. I personally value thoughtful answers the most (and prettymuch
> ignore flames and my-dog-is-better-than-your-dog comments) and I try to
> thoughtfully consider recommendations. However, I don't promise any action
> or even a response to any email (and I confess that I am guilty as charged
> in the review of not answered 100% of all email queries I get--I have no
> excuse.)
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Wayne, W5XD
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/

------------------------------------------
Dr. Jerry R. Pixton, PIXOS Designs LLC
http://www.pixos.com/designs/RadioTuner/
jpixton@shentel.net
------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/