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