I enjoyed reading your message and it sure reminds me of the travails I
experienced when I used TR for the first time after having used CT for a
while.
Now that I have used TR for a while and negotiated the steep learning curve,
I find that with TR I spend less time typing and more time contesting. That
is good.
More generally, sometimes one wants to make a tradeoff of increased
complexity for better performance. Manual gear shift and Unix editor vi
come to mind.
Vi is a particularly good example as it seems to be a model for TR. It is
an editor with two modes "insert" and "modify" for those two purposes. One
uses an escape character to switch between the two. Quite like TR which has
two modes of S&P and Run. The advantage of this moded operation is that the
interface for each mode can exquisitely tailored to minimize keystrokes and
increase efficiency. The cost? Complexity. Many years ago when I did do
professional programming on a Unix machine, I could modify programs at
speeds I never could using chorded keys (ctl, alt) used by Emacs or any
mouse based editor. Essentially, the hand almost never deviated from the
QWERTY position and if you were a good typist you could edit really fast
with vi.
No one program is going to be the ideal program for all users. Pick the one
you like. CT seems to be the obvious choice from your remarks.
Regards,
Rajiv, N2RD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed (G3SQX / N0ED)" <G3SQX@email.com>
To: <trlog@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 11:00 PM
Subject: [TRLog] LONG -- Reflections on first real use of TR LOG, and a few
gripes
>
> Hello TR LOG people,
>
> I see that the posts on this reflector seem to come from TR LOG
> enthusiasts. I had hoped to become one of this august band, but it may
> not be possible. Am I am permitted to make a few observations about the
> way that TR works? I might even make a criticism or two. If you can't
> handle it, please press DELETE immediately!
>
> My local club (Mile High DX Association) entered ARRL Field Day last
> weekend, and TR was announced as the logging software of choice. Since
> I bought TR almost a year ago, but have been too busy (scared?) to try
> it, I thought I would make a real effort. I started re-reading the
> manual, and got the software going on my computer.
>
> The first thing I found was that the manual is virtually
> incomprehensible. Even though a fellow Brit is charged with making it
> seem like a real "User's Guide", I suspect he has only reached page 22.
> There is an inherent problem in writing documentation, because TR is not
> an easy program to learn, and you have to explain about 20 concepts all
> at once. Still, there has to be a better way. I consulted another TR
> fan (let's call him "Dai"), and said I could make little sense of it.
> He replied, "I believe this is because the manual is written in
> Klingon." Remember, this is from a guy who is a devotee. May I also
> suggest that the PDF format is an abomination, and almost any other
> would work better (HTML is fine with me).
>
> Having used most of the other contest logging software around, I soon
> realized that there was a steep learning curve with TR. Of course, I
> suppose I was spoiled. When I first started using CT, I carried around
> a piece of paper with half a dozen keys listed, and their usage ("F1",
> "+", etc.) After a while, I didn't need it. Even using TR with just
> the serial port connected for keying (and nothing else), I found that
> the key I was using most often was Alt-H. Unfortunately, this was not
> always helpful.
>
> TR can do a lot of things. A very large number of things! Most of them
> are things I don't want to do, and we didn't want to do them during
> Field Day. We had a very hard time finding out how to do the things we
> really DID want to do. I was pulled out of my tent at 6:30 am in a deep
> slumber by one operator, who seemed to think I was the TR expert! "How
> do I program the F3 key to send a message?" Actually, that was easy,
> although we had to it twice (once for S&P and once for Run mode). I
> couldn't help thinking that the same function was implemented in most
> other logging programs by doing Shift-F3, or whatever is the F key you
> want to program.
>
> I wanted to put a space before a CW message. It took half an hour to
> find that one out from the documentation (it's underline, not hyphen,
> apparently). We wanted to do a floppy disk backup. Only five minutes
> for that (v. good!), although the message telling us that the log had
> been backed to floppy up was completely wrong (it's obvious to any
> programmer that the floppy is "A:"). I guess I'm too old to memorize
> the whole manual now, so it would be nice to have an on-line searchable
> help document.
>
> I suppose my main gripe is with TR's "user interface" -- in particular,
> the use of the keyboard for carrying out the main program functions.
> The screen is a mess, but it's difficult to do anything about this with
> MSDOS (although SD has a very much nicer-looking logging screen).
> However, almost everything about the allocation of keys to program
> functions in TR is difficult to learn and confusing. When I think back
> to the days when I wrote MSDOS programs, I would never have dreamed of
> putting out a program with TR's user interface. I guess this sounds
> pretty blunt, but I can only report what I have found over several days
> with the manual, plus two days of actual usage.
>
> My friend Dai says that I shouldn't let myself be overwhelmed by a mere
> program, and adds, "After you had been licensed less than 3 months
> [1964] did they shove you on the key in Field Day [yes], did you run a
> pile-up on a straight key [yes], and wonder why all the old farts were
> looking at you in amazement [it was great fun!]." Yes to all of these
> things, and it was hard. I have no problem learning how to do difficult
> things, but when there is a better way, we should use it. I have no
> sympathy with the attitude that says, " I managed to learn this, and it
> took a lot of effort, so you should go through the same effort that I
> did."
>
> Because TR can do almost everything, there are going to be keys which
> make it carry out all these myriad functions. Letters and number are
> already in use, but it makes sense to represent all the other functions
> with single characters (or, at least, Ctrl and Alt characters). Of
> course, we won't remember the 60 or so possibilities in the middle of
> the night, so there are two choices: either have a comprehensive HELP
> system that will remind you; or, (as some programs do) have an
> alternative which accepts commands in the callsign field, where
> English-like words do the same thing (e.g. SOUND, FASTDUMP, etc.) Given
> this is the method of choice in TR, shouldn't Alt-H tell you anything
> you want to know? I realize that TR is very sparing of memory (good),
> but if you're desperate, you'll surely let TR scan slowly through a disk
> file for you to find out how to do something?
>
> Perhaps the main bone of contention I have is that TR is "NOT modeless."
> This is computer-speak for "TR does different things when the same key
> is depressed, depending on the circumstances." Or, to put it another
> way, "Unless you're paying REALLY close attention, TR will do something
> you don't expect each time you press the same key." Perhaps TR users
> are paying close attention at all times (sorry, I don't fall into this
> category). If you're trying to find a place to call CQ, or tuning a
> dead band for a multiplier, your mind will be otherwise engaged. My
> instinct is that you will then try to get your contest logging program
> to do your will, almost certainly without benefit of the thought
> process. If the F1 key is somehow connected in your mind with "CQ" and
> the F4 key with "send my callsign" you have a chance of doing the right
> thing. If you have to decide "switch to S&P" or "switch to Run mode"
> then press Enter, you've used too many valuable neurons. I suppose I'm
> in a minority here.
>
> I lost track in FD of the number of times I pressed ESC to stop CW
> sending, but found I had pressed it one time too many. Oh -- seem to
> have deleted a QSO, oops, now I've switched mode (I now know this can
> be turned off). Then Space appears to do several different things,
> which do not seem to be switchable off. I suppose I should have
> expected TAB to do something weird. Of course, Enter does almost
> everything (but hardly ever the thing I wanted). OK, I'm exaggerating.
> MOST of the time TR did what I thought it would. When it didn't I spent
> time off the rig trying to remember what to do to get it back to where
> it was. I'm still trying to figure out the F-key programming conundrum.
> By the way, I thought if I answered all the initial ("let's make a
> LOGCFG") questions correctly, my exchange would be created
> automatically -- not so, and (AFAICS) you have to exit TR and start
> again to do it.
>
> What am I saying? Maybe it's this: the interface devised by K1EA is
> not great, but it's not THAT bad. Progress would be made by taking it
> and improving it. K8CC did not do a very good job of this, but tried.
> CT has an overwhelming advantage: you can use it after a few minutes
> learning, CW or phone. It's impossible to say the same about TR, as our
> club found out at the weekend. Perhaps I should propose a new
> LOGCFG.DAT command:
> CT MODE SIMULATE = TRUE
> It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a start.
>
> Well, I see I've unloaded a few grumbles. What did I like about TR?
> Several things:
> (1) It didn't crash or freeze. This is a MAJOR advantage, and makes me
> want to continue studying TR in the hope of mastering the way it works.
> (2) It does everything. No question about it. When I feel strong
> enough to join a multi-multi team again, I KNOW the best choice will be
> TR. For a single-operator, single-radio station, it's doubtful.
> (3) It sends good CW. I can change speed instantly. Great!
> (4) The support is unparalleled. Bugs seem to be fixed instantly. And
> the author/bug-fixer is a contester. Excellent!
>
> Nonetheless, the bottom line is that I'm somewhat disappointed with TR.
> For no very good reason, it takes simple functions and makes them
> complicated. Additional functionality (beyond what you can learn in ten
> minutes) requires a major investment in reading and experimenting, and
> quite a bit of knowledge of MSDOS (surely a rare commodity these days).
> I've heard it said that "anything worthwhile takes a bit of effort."
> True -- but I want my effort to go into improving my rig and putting up
> new antennas.
>
> I hope you'll accept my comments in the spirit in which they're
> intended -- that is, the experience of a newbie, who REALLY wanted to
> find that TR was wonderful. I'm still in two minds as to which program
> to use for the IOTA contest, so please try to convince me ..........
>
> 73,
>
> Ed, N0ED / G3SQX
>
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
> Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
> Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
|