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

[DJ3IW Goetz]

Some comments from a RTTY contesters perspective:

> 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?

It took me a while to get used to WL - now I don't see a need for "modes".

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

Not at all.

> 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 as it is.

> 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?

No, but once in a while some hints what will be in the next release and
about the release date would be "nice to have".

> 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 at 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).

Leave the WL upgrade distributions the way they are now. But add a warning
to the install if newer files will get overwritten with a choice to say no.
Otherwise I join Jim, W8WTS:  "I would like to see WL provide a data file
upgrade package.  This distribution would update all relevant data files to
latest versions.  Since the impact of data file update on WL functionality
is almost nil, this would be the low-risk upgrade option that could be
applied right up to 0000Z."

> 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.)

Other: The "feature" that F-keys will NOT be transmitted when the Rttyrite
window is active puzzles me again and again. One tends to forget that the
Log/Edit window must be active to transmit F-keys.

> Thanks for your consideration,
> Wayne, W5XD

Thank you Wayne!

73 de Goetz
dj3iw at t-online.de