[WriteLog] comparison with the competition. input requested

[Gary Ferdinand W2CS]

Wayne,

Though I've only operated one contest so far (SS) using WL I did form some
impressions.  Up to now it was strictly TR or CT.

I'd ask you to consider reducing keystrokes wherever possible for repetitive
operations.  The auto-clear is an example.  The 'hit the space bar' to
record in the band map (implemented) is another.

I for one find that WL is cumbersome when doing S&P operations. Multiple PF
keys.  Remembering which form of enter to use.  While this is similar to
(same?) as CT, it is an area where, compared with TR, I lose time fumbling
around at 3AM half asleep, etc.  This is more than lack of familiarity-I had
this problem long after the first few hundred Qs were logged.  Rather, I
think the problem, with me at least, is that I need some help with the run
vs S&P switching.  My head doesn't switch finger modes quickly enough and I
lose Qs.  When brain dead, it helps me to have a single robotic process that
I use to make Qs regarding of who calls first.

This is probably a "my dog is better than yours" area.  Or at least a
philosophical area of discussion.  TR implements a strict difference between
S&P and run.  Different PFkey definitions possible per mode.  But the basic
mechanics of logging a Q, the repetitive part if you will, is the same
whether S&P or run.  The penalty paid is that the op needs to know what mode
TR is in.  TR helps by switching to S&P mode if the VFO knob moves freq by
some user-definable amount such as 1KHz.  ESC is used to force run mode.
Very little time is required to figure it all out, but once done, the
operation of S&P vs run is seamless:

RUN:  type callsign, hit enter (pre-programmed exchange sent), type
exchange, hit enter (roger + new CQ or whatever you've programmed)

S&P:  type callsign, hit enter (dumps in your call), type exchange, hit
enter (sends your exchange).

call-enter-exchange-enter or call-enter-exchange enter ... the same
regardless of S&P or run.  That's something my sleep-deprived brain can
handle.

This is probably a tear up of WL's basic design, but IMO this one area
places WL at a competitive disadvantage with anyone coming from TR looking
at WL as the next-gen logger of choice.

Another area of competitive weakness is the band map.  It simply is not big
enough.  Even on my 21" monitor I cannot fit an entire band in. There's no
way to scroll the band map.  No logger I know of does this perfectly, as
monitor real estate is at a premium.  But if you could allow independent (to
current op freq) scroll of the bandmap, you'd have a competitive edge.
Perhaps a horizontal map would provide the real estate; don't know.  Somehow
I think not as anyone running on 10 meters during the WW would agree with :)

On the flip side, the ability to show multiple bands worth of maps is very
useful, but is limited by the inability to scroll.  (Resetting the center
point is too time-consuming.)

The implementation of the networking is excellent.  Standard, modern parts
(ethernet cards) and great recovery capability.  This is FAR superior to
TR's lethargic implementation of a daisy chain on a vanishing part called
the serial port.  Though there seems to be a design deficiency in the area
of QSO number assignments where the same number can be given out by two
positions, one running and one doing S&P on the same band.  There doesn't
appear to be any implementation having a global scope to the number
generation. Put differently, the design appears to assume that a M/M has but
one operating position per band.  Not true.

Overall, though, a wonderful piece of work.  The above are issues that the
M/M effort I'm in have raised through discussion over the past couple months
as we consider our options.

73,

Gary W2CS
Apex, NC



> -----Original Message-----
> From: writelog-admin@contesting.com
> [mailto:writelog-admin@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Wayne Wright, W5XD
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:26 PM
> To: writelog@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [WriteLog] comparison with the competition. input requested
>
>
> > Yes, but will the callsign be automatically wiped from the entry box if
> > you  tune your radio off freq?  Elegant feature of Logger, eh?  With
> > Writelog you  have to type 2 extra keystrokes: spacebar and then Alt-W -
> > I think that's  enough extra to make a difference over a 48 hour
> > contest, besides the  annoyance factor.
> >
>
> This is the kind of discussion I was probing for. Some of the reasons that
> an individual prefers one program over another are stylistic preferences
> that I can safely paraphrase as "my dog is better than your dog". Those
> preferences are valid, but I might not be able, or not willing, to change
> WL to suite.
>
> However, the "auto-clear of a dupe when you tune away" is a feature WL
> could probably have. Heaven knows how many features appeared first in WL
> that have been copied elsewhere, so I won't apologize for copying this
> one. (And to give credit where due: WL implements dozens if not hundreds
> of features that first appeared in CT/NA/TR)
>
> Wayne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>