W4TV wrote: >If you want to talk >about a new feature set for a new model with a different UI, that's >fine but don't mess with Split
"Don't mess with Split" is not your call to make, Joe. > even the current basic implementation >is obviously a problem. Overload the control or [optionally] change >the basic behavior of that control and you are going to cause real >confusion. At last, something we can agree about: "the current basic implementation is obviously a problem". The problem is that the current implementation of Split is *too* basic. It cannot handle the routine task of preparing the K3 for pileup operation without significant risk of human error. Hence the request for a 'smarter' alternative that also includes the vital step of moving VFOB away from the frequency of the DX station. I am totally confident that Elecraft can handle the implications of offering two alternative behaviors for the [SPLIT] button, given that Yaesu and Icom have long been able to offer two alternatives or even three. I am also confident that Elecraft users are at least as competent as Yaesu and Icom users. Let's keep this in perspective: this is a straightforward feature request for an option that already has a proven 20-year track record. Since it would only be an option, every K3 user would still be free to make their own individual choice. Given all that, I see no reason for just *one* individual to have responded in such a wildly exaggerated manner. "A K3 that has been perverted with Quick Split"... wherever is *that* coming from? 73 from Ian GM3SEK ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
