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

[Dick Green]

My 2 cents:

1. Modes are a marketing issue. Writelog's CT-compatibility mode has made it
easy for CT and NA users to migrate. If you want to attract and please
TR-Log users, then you have to implement modes. If you do that, the feature
should be enabled/disabled through a configuration option. Personally, I
don't like modes and was never able to get used to the obscure TR-log
command set. But... to each his own. Given the amount of traffic about modes
we get on the reflector and the touting of modes by N1MM, I would go ahead
and implement them. However, careful study of the methodology used by TR-log
and N1MM should be done first. I'll bet you can do it better than they do
and still be compatible with their features.

2. I probably shouldn't comment on the bandmap since I use packet so rarely.
When I do, I prefer to point and click in the packet spot window. That said,
I did enjoy using the packet window in N1MM at the NT1Y M/2 in CQWW SSB. I
liked the "on-deck circle", automatic clearing when you tune away, etc.
Looks like most of that is in 10.45-46. I didn't get around to using the
zoom option in N1MM, but I can see why people would want it. It seems to me
that the bandmap never quite shows me the portion of the band I want to see.
Sometimes I want to see who is nearby and sometimes I want a picture of the
whole band. I think it would be a good idea to study what N1MM does and then
decide if it's worth it.

3. The floating/docked window think is also a marketing issue. I don't mean
this in the sense of market share, but in the sense of marketing
communications and promotion. The trouble is that it's not obvious that
Writelog supports floating windows. A couple of people at the NT1Y M/2 were
amazed when I told them that you can undock windows in Writelog. Basically,
the market perception is that Writelog has an old-fashioned Windows 3.x user
interface. Perhaps this could be addressed in a tutorial, demo mode, or on
the website. Maybe you could have a fly out tag on each window saying
"Double click on window to undock". I don't know exactly how to get the
point across, but it's a matter of communication. In any event, don't remove
docking from Writelog -- I like it. I would, however, look into updating
Writlog's look and feel to be more consistent with the latest XP look and
feel. 

BTW I was going to strongly endorse the request to have multiple copies of
the multiplier window, each of which can show a different set of mults. Then
I discovered the new keyboard shortcut ContestShowMultiplierNext! This is
even better (if only I can find a free key...) I can now page through the
mults -- just like in CT! Separate windows would take up too much screen
space. Kudos on this one, Wayne. 

4. I agree with everyone else about updates. Never release updates just
before a contest, and keep beta testing! Yeah, I wish requests for new
features were implemented sooner, but bear in mind N1MM is really no faster
-- it's taken several years to get near Writelog's level and they're not
there yet. I guess the only caveat is that if there's a fix for a serious
bug, it should be released ASAP. I think that's been happening anyway.

5. I very much like the suggestion of packaging data file updates together
and making it a one-button install (including conversion of the CTY file.)
As I recall, N1MM has a built-in feature to grab the files off the web and
install them.

6. Aside from some minor cosmetic enhancements to update the look, I think
the single most important thing you could do is implement all of the
configuration parameters in a configuration menu with tabs. N1MM has that.
I'm certain that new users are very put off by the fact that important
parameters have to be set in the ini file. Some users don't even know where
the Windows directory is, let alone how to read and edit an ini file.
Documentation on the ini parameters is sparse as well. If they were grouped
together in a menu with tabs, you could alter parameters on the fly without
a shutdown/restart and you could use context sensitive help or fly out tags
that briefly explain each parameter. The option to put the parameters in the
registry seems like a step backwards because they are even harder to edit
there (and dangerous.) The only way that makes sense is if there will be a
config menu that covers all parameters. I realize this is a lot of work, but
I think it would be well worth it in terms of market perception.

73, Dick WC1M


> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Wright, W5XD [mailto:w5xd at writelog.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:30 PM
> To: writelog at contesting.com
> Subject: [WriteLog] What should change in WriteLog w.r.t. this review?
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 2. zooming of the bandmap. how useful is this to you?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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
> 
>