En Roy Lewallen va escriure en Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:29:06 -0700:

Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything,
including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Hi Roy,

It is true that your program's user interface is not the best in
the world, but... Who cares? I think the free version of EZNEC
has made a lot for the ham community, much more than some of the
people criticizing you.

Best regards,

--
Toni

"Auto" = prefijo griego que significa "no funciona"

Wes Stewart wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:22:16 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

|
|Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...
| Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
| confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything,
| including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual.
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
|Hi Roy,
|
|Not meaning to insult, but judging from the
|past, let me suggest that constructive
|criticism seems to end up in your waste
|basket. Here, it's obvious you'd rather
|demean confused users, rather than admit
|to a flaw in your program's conception.
|
|One would assume you would have learned
|something in regards to "intuitive" or "user
|friendly" from the many negative comments
|you've received in regards to the horribly
|clunky interface of your DOS version.
|
|Apparently, you either haven't the ability to
|conceptualize an intuitive interface or you're
|just too arrogant to listen to your customer's
|suggestions... which is it?

You must be talking about another Roy.

I have on several occasions contacted Roy and pointed out minor bugs
and every time I have been thanked for reporting the problem. Usually
a patch was forthcoming to me via email within a day if not sooner. A
public patch could be found on his web site shortly after.

I have to contrast this to a popular logging program that I use where
I have had similar difficulties and posted my comments on their
reflector. Once, the program developer had the nerve to call me on my
unlisted number and ask me to refrain from making such comments
because I was costing them sales. During that conversation I used Roy
as an example of how a software company *should* support its
customers.

They also have the MO of "saving up" bug fixes and selling me an
annual "improved" program, something that I haven't had to do with
EZNEC.


Hi Wes,

There is no doubt, Roy is an excellent
engineer, but as an interface programmer,
IMO, the opposite is true. Apparently, my
experience has not been the same as
yours, but in any case, there is no excuse
for inconsistency... or demeaning those
who request help on NGs as a result.

Chuck, WA7RAI

Toni wrote in message
...
En Roy Lewallen va escriure en Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:29:06 -0700:

Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything,
including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Hi Roy,

It is true that your program's user interface is not the best in
the world, but... Who cares? I think the free version of EZNEC
has made a lot for the ham community, much more than some of the
people criticizing you.

Best regards,

--
Toni

"Auto" = prefijo griego que significa "no funciona"

Hi Tony,

There have been over 2 million copies of
my freeware 'Quickyagi' downloaded, with
zero (0) complaints from users. Free, isn't
everything, y'know...

WA7RAI

En Chuck va escriure en Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:41:59 -0700:

There have been over 2 million copies of
my freeware 'Quickyagi' downloaded, with
zero (0) complaints from users. Free, isn't
everything, y'know...

Hi Chuck,

I didn't know that program, but I'll Google for it and have a
look. In any case, from it's name, I infer that it is a Yagui
design/optimize program that may be very good, but only for
advanced amateurs.

What I was referring to, and this is what makes EZNEC special, is
the posibility of "try and see". You read about, for ex., delta
match and go to EZNEC and try it. You can experiment what happens
if the match is too long or too short or... whatever. This is
specially good to check that your design is not too critical. If
you see that small differences in element construction will cause
big degradation you can forget building it with real tools and
materials.

As for the price, effectively, free isn't everything but it helps
with programs whose utility is not clear until you have used them
for long enough. I know this is the shareware concept but I
reckon it does not work for business. Roy's intermediate approach
seems good to me: reduced but sufficient functionality for the
masses and full for whoever pays it.

73's
--
Toni

"Auto" = prefijo griego que significa "no funciona"

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything,
including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

As someone who has done a large amount of software design and
implementation with highly varied target audiences, I would suggest that
making the design such that minimal need for reference to the manual
because of multiple paths to user desired results is something to be
looked at seriously. Sorry about the awkward verbage, I'm not sure how
to express it elegantly.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, you're absolutely right. And the number of times I've been asked
this particular question shows that I do need to address the issue being
discussed.

But. . .

While there are some standards which can just about universally be
agreed on as far as usability and consistency are concerned, there are
vast differences in opionion about how a large number of features should
be handled. An interface that's intuitive to one person is hopelessly
awkward to another. I know this for a fact, since I get comments clear
across the spectrum about the program and its interface. During product
development, I often ask the beta testers to choose among two or more
ways of implementing a feature, and seldom get unanimity. Two things
I've learned in this very interesting endeavor a 1. Avoid making
changes or implementing features to please one or a small number of
people. 2. You can't please everyone. Considering the complexity of the
program, it's a certainty that everyone can find something he doesn't like.

Complaints like Chuck's would bother me if it weren't for the very large
number of positive comments I receive, the amateurs and professional
customers who continue to purchase upgrades, and the commercial
customers who keep buying more and more copies. Complaints and negative
comments aren't to be ignored by any means, but the positive feedback
keeps them in context. Anyone who does buy the program gets a fast and
complete refund if not fully satisfied (although, ironically, they might
not know that if they're unwilling to open the manual) -- there's simply
no way to get a bad deal and no excuse to feel cheated. The demo program
is exactly like the full program with the single exception of the
segment limit, and includes the full manual, so anyone can see exactly
what the program is like before they buy it. Those who don't like it
hopefully won't buy it.

It is indeed my goal to make the program operable without any reference
to the manual. A secondary goal is to make the manual as complete as
possible, so a user can easily find out how to do something that isn't
immediately obvious (remembering that what's obvious to one person is
often obtuse to another). I'll never fully meet both goals, but I do
keep trying. And I appreciate the suggestions and comments.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Tom Ring wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything,
including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


As someone who has done a large amount of software design and
implementation with highly varied target audiences, I would suggest that
making the design such that minimal need for reference to the manual
because of multiple paths to user desired results is something to be
looked at seriously. Sorry about the awkward verbage, I'm not sure how
to express it elegantly.

tom
K0TAR

Hubris aside Roy, you still fail to address the
most salient: due to a programming
inconsistency - yours - your customer feels
he is left with no option but to come to this
NG in search of an answer to a dilemma.

Rather than apologizing for your programming
failure, you berate him instead.

If I were in your position (and I have been), I
would have made an apology, then offered
a free upgrade once the inconsistency was
resolved.

Is your ego so fragile that it is more important
than your customer's satisfaction?

Apparently so...

Indeed, it seems our views on business ethics
are as opposite as are our views on the need
to model a bi-directional coaxial phasing line,
as well as the induced energy that would be
present at the reverse input of such a line, in
a dual element (critically coupled) broadside
array.

Tom, you're absolutely right. And the number of times I've been asked
this particular question shows that I do need to address the issue being
discussed.

But. . .

While there are some standards which can just about universally be
agreed on as far as usability and consistency are concerned, there are
vast differences in opionion about how a large number of features should
be handled. An interface that's intuitive to one person is hopelessly
awkward to another. I know this for a fact, since I get comments clear
across the spectrum about the program and its interface. During product
development, I often ask the beta testers to choose among two or more
ways of implementing a feature, and seldom get unanimity. Two things
I've learned in this very interesting endeavor a 1. Avoid making
changes or implementing features to please one or a small number of
people. 2. You can't please everyone. Considering the complexity of the
program, it's a certainty that everyone can find something he doesn't like.

Complaints like Chuck's would bother me if it weren't for the very large
number of positive comments I receive, the amateurs and professional
customers who continue to purchase upgrades, and the commercial
customers who keep buying more and more copies.

Since yours is one of the few available
in-depth interfaces to the NEC(n) engine, this
is not surprising. What is surprising is your
cavalier attitude - I'd think a seasoned
professional like yourself would want to do
his very best.

Chuck, WA7RAI

Complaints and negative
comments aren't to be ignored by any means, but the positive feedback
keeps them in context. Anyone who does buy the program gets a fast and
complete refund if not fully satisfied (although, ironically, they might
not know that if they're unwilling to open the manual) -- there's simply
no way to get a bad deal and no excuse to feel cheated. The demo program
is exactly like the full program with the single exception of the
segment limit, and includes the full manual, so anyone can see exactly
what the program is like before they buy it. Those who don't like it
hopefully won't buy it.

It is indeed my goal to make the program operable without any reference
to the manual. A secondary goal is to make the manual as complete as
possible, so a user can easily find out how to do something that isn't
immediately obvious (remembering that what's obvious to one person is
often obtuse to another). I'll never fully meet both goals, but I do
keep trying. And I appreciate the suggestions and comments.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Tom Ring wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything,
including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


As someone who has done a large amount of software design and
implementation with highly varied target audiences, I would suggest that
making the design such that minimal need for reference to the manual
because of multiple paths to user desired results is something to be
looked at seriously. Sorry about the awkward verbage, I'm not sure how
to express it elegantly.

tom
K0TAR

Let me see if I understand.
A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the
most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why.

Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since
anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge.

Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place
work.

Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

Chuck wrote:
Hubris aside Roy, you still fail to address the
most salient: due to a programming
inconsistency - yours - your customer feels
he is left with no option but to come to this
NG in search of an answer to a dilemma.

Rather than apologizing for your programming
failure, you berate him instead.

If I were in your position (and I have been), I
would have made an apology, then offered
a free upgrade once the inconsistency was
resolved.

Is your ego so fragile that it is more important
than your customer's satisfaction?

Apparently so...

Indeed, it seems our views on business ethics
are as opposite as are our views on the need
to model a bi-directional coaxial phasing line,
as well as the induced energy that would be
present at the reverse input of such a line, in
a dual element (critically coupled) broadside
array.

Hi Chuck,
I'm sure you're justifiably proud of
your own programming efforts, and there's no reason
not to brag if you want to, but writing posts like this
only serves to reinforce the notion among some readers that
you've succumbed to the temptation to act like a
sanctimonious ass.
The EZNEC manual is a good thing to read if you're going
to use EZNEC. There aren't many technical instruction
manuals in the world as well written. If you've ever had
to use a manual such as the old GE Fanuc machine tool controller
instruction manual which was machine translated from Japanese to
some language that only superficially resembles English, you'll
know what I mean.
As for being able to write a program that anyone can pick
up and use without the need for written instruction, that will
always remain an unrealizable fantasy, since the user's
cognitive abilities are beyond the control of the program
designer.
There's a name for people who write posts full of
invidious little insults, and oblique little bitch-slaps,
but I won't use it here. You can bet, however, that some
of the people who read your post are going to use it, if
only to themselves.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message
...
Let me see if I understand.
A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the
most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why.

Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since
anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge.

Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place
work.

Mac,

Clearly, you do not understand!

Public disparagement of a customer with
a valid issue is not appropriate under any
circumstances.

And that's the issue I am raising here, as
well as opposing the cavalier attitude that
engenders such disparagement.

With all due respect, you erroneously
concluded I am a software vender, when
in fact, I am here simply as an interested
Ham who has a right to form an opinion -
good or bad.

Chuck, WA7RAI


Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home: