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

[Ian White, G3SEK]

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:
>
>http://www.pvrc.org/Newsletters/feb04.pdf   (scroll down to page 8)
>
>The specific points I wonder if I should pursue further are:
>
Several people have replied already, so I'll be repeating some points...

>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?
>
As others have said, modal behavior can be useful, but only if it's 
optional and only if it's smart.

One possible solution is a "Run/S&P" setup dialog in the Entry menu, 
with plenty of user selections. For example, it might look something 
like this...

Different settings for Run and S&P:
Never (*)     Set rules/actions below  ( ).

Switch to Run mode (check as many as required):
[ ] On pressing CQ key
[ ] On pressing F12                     (see 10.45 new features)
[ ] >2 QSOs, same frequency     (see 10.45 new features)

Switch to S&P mode (check as many as required):
[ ] On pressing S&P report  key
[ ] On pressing Alt-F12
[ ] On tuning away   (from the Run frequency - new, undocumented option 
in 10.45 .ini file)
S&P mode is automatic when jumping to the bandmap or a DX cluster spot.

Actions (check as many as required):

Well, you see the idea...   something like that would give each user the 
flexibility to set up modal behavior as required.

Personally I would check only a few actions here, for example: Enter 
sends exch/QRZ on Run only; RTTY AFC on Run only; RTTY NET on S&P only.


>2. zooming of the bandmap. how useful is this to you?
>
I wouldn't find zoom (magnify) very useful, but a pair of buttons to 
scroll up or down a whole screen would be.


>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?
>
No - it works fine. (The reviewer apparently hadn't understood that WL 
allows either docked or floating windows.)

>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?
>
I think you're doing it right, and am always prepared to wait for the 
more stable release version.

However, it would be useful to publish lists of new features as they go 
into beta testing. It saves pointless speculation.

>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).
>
That makes sense, so long as it's made clear to everybody.


>I invite email comments to any or all of the above, either direct or on the
>reflector.

Thanks, Wayne... you're doing fine, so keep the good stuff coming!


-- 
73 from Ian G3SEK