[WriteLog] digirite issues during the WW

Wed Sep 4 15:59:50 EDT 2019

Ed I think you (and I for my own special ways of doing things) are a
special case... most users are not mouse-ambidextrous. I was thinking more
of a typical user, and one who maybe uses a trackpad for its ergonomics,
like I do day to day.

On my track pad a right click is effected by a two finger press. A bit
awkward and sometimes I don't get both fingers down cleanly.

I can't speak for how other trackpads do it.

You're not going to get me to argue against the function. It's clearly
useful! :)

73 jeff wk6i

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:42 PM Ed Muns <ed at w0yk.com> wrote:

> *Comments below …*
>
>
>
> *Ed*
>
>
>
> I think the right/left click behavior needs to be reversed. Left should
> maintain my Tx, right should choose zero beat Tx.
>
> *[Ed Muns] You’re overthinking this in my view.  I understand your
> analytical logic, but in practice either way works fine.  It becomes
> unconscious after a while.  Remember, I’m right-handed but 20 years ago I
> started mousing (or, trackballing) with my left hand in everyday PC work.
> That trained me to be fully ambidextrous for SO2R contesting.  After just
> an hour or so of WW Digi (after I discovered the right- left-click feature
> for TX frequency control) it was second nature to call CQers on the
> frequency I wanted.  All this right-click/left-click stuff is reversed
> between my left and right hands …. But, even I have been able to make it
> all second nature.*
>
>
>
> *When I was tuned to an “upper” contest segment, e.g., 14.082 and found a
> CQer below 1000 Hz, I often chose to answer on his TX frequency to be sure
> he heard me.  Just in case he was tuned to 14.080 with an audio frequency
> of 2500 Hz and I were to call at, say, 1500 Hz, he’d never hear me because
> I’m transmitting above his RX passband.  You’ll always be in his RX
> passband if you zero-beat, but you may also be in a pileup, though FT does
> pretty good at copying multiple zero-beat signals.*
>
>
>
> In general, left clicks are the typical, right clicks are the less-typical
> or special case. In RTTYrite you left click to get the call into Entry
> (typical), you right click to push the call to the call stack (less
> typical). I totally get why responding zero beat on the CQ Tx frequency is
> desirable (and I think it's pretty cool too!) but maintaining your own Tx
> is also desirable and I still think more typical. Having to right click
> most of the time is awkward on a mouse, and if you are using a trackpad,
> could be REALLY awkward. (Ed, you even called it an exception. :) )
>
> *[Ed Muns] Agree technically, but in practice it doesn’t matter based on
> my experience.*
>
>
>
> If I choose zero beat Tx, is there a way to go back to my previous Tx? I
> don't remember seeing that.
>
> *[Ed Muns] Right-click on the call in the QSOs in Progress pane and toggle
> the first menu entry (TX on their frequency).  Did this a LOT, so again
> it’s handy to be on a mouse click.*
>
>
>
> Thanks and 73! jeff wk6i
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 6:19 PM Ed Muns <ed at w0yk.com> wrote:
>
> *Comments below …*
>
> *Ed W0YK*
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WriteLog <writelog-bounces at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Jeff Stai
> Sent: 01 September, 2019 13:24
> To: Writelog Reflector <writelog at contesting.com>; Wayne <
> support at writelog.com>
> Subject: [WriteLog] digirite issues during the WW
>
> Observations and suggestions. Overall a heck of a nice piece of code and I
>
> very much preferred it over using WSJT-x.
>
> *[Ed Muns] Strongly agree.  This was confirmed again during the 22 hours I
> spent in WW Digi.  I really like WriteLog's RTTY and digital software
> design.*
>
> 1. Check boxes unchecking. At various times - when re-sending - the check
>
> boxes for the QSOs in progress, Calculated next, and/or the Automatically
>
> Transmit Next would simply uncheck. One example would be answering a CQ,
>
> then not seeing a CQ for a couple cycles, then seeing the CQ but whoops the
>
> box is not checked so I don't get my answer sent in the next cycle.
>
> Another case was I was calling CQ and saw a multiplier pop up in the CQ
>
> window. I quickly clicked on the call and Automatically Transmit Next was
>
> unchecked and I missed responding. And more than once I saw the call get
>
> unchecked in QSOs in progress after just one or two resends.
>
> In none of these cases and others was I anywhere close to the 5 minute
>
> inactivity timeout. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes at the most.
>
> *[Ed Muns] The logic needed in DigiRite for handling QSO message
> sequencing, given all possible situations, is daunting, though at first
> glance it may seem simple.  I'm impressed it works as well as it does at
> this point in its development with the limited amount of experience users
> have had with it.*
>
> *Check boxes "uncheck" for reasons other than timeouts.  They may need to
> uncheck based on what is happening in the QSO sequence(s).  This is
> especially true for the Calculated next pane where "next" is the next QSO
> phase.  Not only do boxes check and uncheck, but calls come and go.
> DigiRite is trying to figure out what the next best move is and let the
> user know.*
>
> 2. Scrolling in the CQ windows needs to be more "RTTYrite-like" and not
>
> jumping around while populating. Trying to click on a moving target
>
> resulted in some erroneous calls and lost Qs. Ditto the Messages to me
>
> window (I operated with Auto respond unchecked.) I gather some sort of
>
> prioritization is going on? But I prefer to choose who to contact next.
>
> *[Ed Muns] Agree that clickable lines in a pane cannot be moving around.
> The RttyRite scroll technique is innovative and being copied by others for
> just this reason.*
>
> 3. Calculated next - often was blank but the right next message was chosen
>
> and sent anyway.
>
> *[Ed Muns] Agree.  Work in progress.*
>
> 4. Sometimes I would see the expected message in the conversation window
>
> but a repeat was sent as if the message hadn't been recognized.
>
> *[Ed Muns] Yes, this needs to be considered along with other feedback.*
>
> 5. "Starting a QSO by answering a CQ message is the only way that DigiRite
>
> puts its QSO's transmit frequency on the other station's RX frequency."
>
> Someone needs to explain why this is desirable.
>
> *[Ed Muns] Ah, I can proudly answer this one because it tripped me up
> until I was enlightened with the very elegant solution that somehow I
> missed in the docs.  If you left-click on a CQ message line (not the
> checkbox, but the text line itself), your transmit frequency is zero beat
> with the CQer.  If you right-click, your transmit frequency is split (where
> you have your transmit frequency set).*
>
> *This is VERY handy, because dynamically you can effortlessly choose where
> to transmit.  Most of the time I right-click, but occasionally I may choose
> to left-click when, say, the CQer is on 14.082.500.  In cases like this I
> can’t know where his radio dial frequency is set.  He could be at 14.080
> with an audio frequency of 2,500 Hz, or he could be on 14.082 with an audio
> frequency of 500 Hz.  If he and I are on different dial frequencies, it is
> possible my TX frequency won’t be in his RX passband so he can’t hear me.
> Zero-beating eliminates that possibility.*
>
> Over in the WSJT groups I see that it is considered poor practice to
>
> transmit on the RX frequency - which I can see because someone could
>
> already be using the other cycle. Usually I have gone to the trouble of
>
> finding a clear place and I'd like to stay there. And if I am CQing and I
>
> see a multiplier appear I want to be able to snag it and keep in my clear
>
> spot.
>
> I'd prefer to see a "Hold TX" like on WSJT-x so I keep my place no matter
>
> what, or maybe let's just not do this?
>
> *[Ed Muns] In general, I agree, but there can be exceptions like the
> example above.  Fortunately, WriteLog makes it easy to do what’s best, on
> the fly.*
>
> 6. I was amazed at seeing so many strong signals in the Transceive window
>
> but seeing so few decodes as a result. Not sure what to make of that...
>
> *[Ed Muns] If the clock sync is off on a strong signal, it may not
> decode.  Or there can be other signal irregularities that prohibit
> decoding.  It’s no different than WSJT-X.  Probably because the decoder is
> the same software!*
>
> 7. I'll echo the request I saw elsewhere for being able to do the longer
>
> sequence with signal report when the other op expects it. I found I was
>
> able to click and choose the alt message if I was quick but I had to be
>
> right there after seeing the decode in the conversation window.  I see this
>
> as analogous to a RTTY op getting conversational on you in a contest. It's
>
> just polite practice, even if you'd rather not... :)
>
> *[Ed Muns] The Alternate messages worked well for me in this regard, with
> the exception that at times (which I couldn’t predict), selecting an
> Alternate message ALSO required checking the Manual Edit checkbox before
> the message went out.  Until I understand what I’m doing wrong (or, if a
> bug, it is fixed) my work-around is to quickly check the two boxes.  Even
> so, I was able to do it fast enough to enable smooth message flow … even
> SO2R.*
>
> 8. I wish I had taken a screen shot of this, but last night I was noticing
>
> some weirdness in the number of points per QSO. Stuff like an N5 being 5
>
> points while a CE is 3 points. Also my score was like 4000 something. I
>
> made a mental note the check on it later.
>
> *[Ed Muns] I would have taken issue with this observation, based on my
> prior experience, but ZW5B, which is PY5EG’s station, gave me 4 points.  I
> would have guessed 2.  So, maybe there is a glitch, but it doesn’t matter.
> The log check software calculates points and ignores whatever the logger
> says.  We ignore the Cabrillo Claimed Score in the Raw Scores listing,
> rather using the log check software to calculate score without any log
> check error considerations.*
>
> This morning after I made my Cabrillo I went to do my 3830 post. That's
>
> when I noticed my score was now 2000 something and my points now appeared
>
> correct. I don't know when this change happened and I'm reasonably certain
>
> I wasn't on drugs.
>
> *[Ed Muns] Well, I’m not sure I can corroborate the drug part, but glad
> the score seemed reasonable.  BTW, some of the 3830 scores do seem off,
> either low or high, but that’s just an anecdotal observation.*
>
> Thanks! jeff wk6i
>
> --
>
> Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff at gmail.com
>
> RTTY op at W7RN
>
> Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> WriteLog mailing list
>
> WriteLog at contesting.com
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>
> WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff at gmail.com
>
> RTTY op at W7RN
>
> Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
>

-- 
Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff at gmail.com
RTTY op at W7RN
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/