I think that the danger with Entourage's scripting capability (which is quite good) is similar to MacOS X's Terminal. It's too easy for things that *should* get fixed to be punted because there's a "workaround", even when the workaround is beyond the understanding of most of the people using the product.
I understand this pressure very well indeed, given that I work in consumer electronics, where time-to-market pressures are extreme. This is not intended to be a knock against Microsoft or the MBU, who have produced a very good product and a nice enhancement with the recent release. It is, however, intended to be another voice in favor of FIXING usability issues like this, even if there is a workaround. --Mike > On 04/08/15 12:16 PM, "Paul Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 8/15/04 10:29 AM, "Frederico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Yes, it's interesting, and effective for some, but it's a great big annoying >>> kludge >> Oh, yes? It's annoying? Very sorry. What's the most annoying part? That it >> exists at all? > > Uh oh. Struck a nerve... (deep breath) > > Not sure why you're taking this personally, Paul (may I call you Paul?); > that the need for a fix exists where none really should is the annoying > part, and I'm pretty sure you know that, but it looks like you're in the > mood for a pissing contest, and I'm your target. (; > > We can argue about this all you want, but adherence to Mac OS HI guidelines, > not to mention software industry standard HI guidelines, is mandatory, IMO; > and I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Your solution for this > particular issue is, as stated, effective for some, indeed, quite possibly > most people, but you can't deny that people are put to some trouble to deal > with it, that it's not intuitive, and that it's not expected behavior. I am > willing to bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of people who have > the problem just get annoyed by the problem without any realistic > expectation that they can (let alone should) find your solution. >> >>> where proper adherence to Mac OS behavior should have been in the >>> first place. That I should be expected to go find and install an obscure >>> third party script, >> >> What exactly makes it "obscure"? I'm quite well known as a scripter of >> Entourage, as it happens. Microsoft publicizes http://macscripter.net as a >> source for Entourage scripts in several places, including MacTopia and the >> online Help and the official Entourage blog, and it's also linked from the >> MVP Entourage website, which is _also_ publicized by MacTopia and the Help. >> Once you go there once, it's no longer "obscure", > > Newsflash: Nail Hammer on Head (film at eleven) > > Paul, you are indeed a well known, well-publicized, and moreover, > well-respected scripter in more than one venue. The problem is that an owner > of Entourage must be expected to know you exist, or figure out you exist, as > well as *understand* that *AS* exists at all, in order to resolve a myriad > of issues that just shouldn't be issues. This is not to be confused with > advanced issues of unpredictable use; that the fact we can indeed design our > own solutions for such is an absolute blessing; don't think for a second I > don't know that. > > What you are glossing over is the very reality that is most everyday, > ordinary software owners. I can give you the names of probably one hundred > or so people I know who use Office for Mac, and I promise you that most of > them do not know where to begin to resolve their annoyances and problems, > let alone feel capable of even implementing the solutions you provide. Most > just tolerate them and only discover solutions if they either happen to be > sitting around talking software (most non-geeks don't), or are lucky enough > to have access to a geek, *and* they remember to outline each little > annoyance that comes along. I'm talking about people like by elderly Mother, > who struggle just to find the time to sit down and answer email; I'm talking > about very busy professors, managers, professionals, et al, who just want a > tool that works; they do not have time to learn how to hunt down, decipher, > install, and implement AS solutions (read: often patches) for what is > annoying them. > > That is the picture I was painting when I made my statement of what is > expected of me; me, not really being the experienced, know where to go or > how to solve it myself me, but the everyday Joe me that is all of us. > Somehow I think you may have suspected that is what I was getting at, but, > if not, try to remember the inexperienced part of you, Paul; the part of you > who, but for the Grace of God, might not be blessed with technical prowess > -- or even common sense. (: Forgive those who are not ambitious or > experienced enough to believe in their hearts that there must be a solution > beyond the tools for the those very tools, presented to them. > >> [...]if it ever was. You can >> hardly expect Microsoft to give every script every written an official stamp >> of approval, > > No, I do not. And let's be clear, here: I'm only annoyed by the need for > scripts which should not exist -- not by this version (X), or even the > newest version of Office & Entourage. MS has been programming on the Mac > since it was born. Many of the MacBU programmers worked *at* Apple/Claris. > They know what's expected from a Mac app; they can afford extra copies of > the HI Guidelines. > >>> then go find some third party OSAX, >> >> I could include it in the folder, in fact. The idea was to try to save >> download size. Some of my scripts even install scripting additions for you. >> Would that make you better disposed to accepting something that actually >> does what you say you want? > > But Paul, in this case, it does not do what I want. Not even close. I don't > have enough keys on my keyboard to execute the solution you provide. Sure, > I'm the rare exception of having more accounts than ninety-odd percent of > all Entourage users, but even users with three or more accounts are probably > going to start sighing when they find this issue. > > Now, I am not as good a scripter as you, Paul, but I can usually get things > done. I built my own script that resolves some of the problems with your > method (before I knew your method even existed), but it is not a complete > solution, and it is not dynamic, nor is yours, and I firmly maintain that it > just shouldn't be required. It's a simple, silly oversight, not a feature, > that should and could easily be there for very little time or cost, but for > the effort to do so. > >> You seem to manage to get to the edges of "insane" all by yourself, if I may >> say so. ;-) Well, "rabid", at any rate. > > If someone poked you needlessly with a pointy stick thirty or forty or > seventy times a day, you'd likely get a bit rabid yourself, wouldn't you? > (: > >>> some simple, standard programming behavior would have allowed me to Tab to >>> the account popup, press 'Return', press the first letter or two of the >>> account name or at least arrow key my way through the menu, press 'Return' >>> again and I'm done. >> >> I don't know where you get the idea that every single mini-feature that you >> can imagine wanting should be included. > > Let's make this clear: I'm saying that basic adherence to HI guidelines is > not a "feature" or even a "mini-feature". It is a programming requirement. > And it is an inexcusable violation of that requirement, when someone as big > and well-funded as MS is, to repeatedly, pervasively ignore the HI rules. > > For gosh sakes, if you're not going to spend the time defining every button > and other interface widget for selection and rotation, at *least* make it > open to Universal Access so a user can at least try to predictably keystroke > around as opposed to reaching for a mouse (that may not be possible to > reach). > >> If enough people want it, MS will often include it in a later version. > > How many handicapped people have to actually express their needs to MS > before MS will realize they should have taken the extra few minutes per HI > widget to make sure each was as accessible as it should be? > > They seem to get that, for the most part, on the Windows side of Office; why > do you make apologies for the Mac side? If Outlook Express can do it -- > remember, it's "free" -- why can't Entourage? > >> [...] Microsoft MUST provide you with everything you want - NOW. What > nonsense. > > Not what I want, what should have been there. > > I don't know what motivated you to devolve a series of posts wherein I > demonstrate a clear understanding between features I would like to see in a > future version, and broken, incomplete or poorly implemented features that > should have been fixed by now -- whether those fixes came in the form of a > free update (as a fix for Office Notifications should) or got wrapped into > one of the more expensive upgrade costs amongst Mac software -- into a > perception that I am an unreasonable nut case venting bile as a hobby. If > that impression is my own fault, for that I apologize. I tend to think that > you are is responsible for much of it; you choose to focus on just one > issue raised, and try to generalize my legitimate gripes as all being > unreasonable, and make it out as though I'm asking for everything, features > and bug fixes alike, for free, right now. Not true, and wholly unfair of > you, Paul. > > Let's isolate this premise just to two items: the accounts popup tab and the > Office Notifications window. Now, be honest, as someone who works hard to > provide effective HI in your own scripts and apps, are these two things > shining examples of powerful features we should be grateful to have, or are > they merely examples of powerful features with sloppy, incomplete > implementations of key items; items that are destined to be used frequently > enough by enough people such as to raise blood pressure when they fall > short. > > If you can defend either of these two items, especially the latter, and > suggest that fixes should come in their sweet time, only through the > Democratic process they have yet to put in place -- if at all -- and at my > expense, then I'm going to have a hard time not finding *that* nonsense. /: > >> Then there are people like you., who seem resentful >> and dyspeptic that I would even presume to provide a solution. It has to be >> Microsoft or no one, right? > > Here you go again, letting your ego get in the way of the real issues; > trying to turn this whole bloody thing into a singular ad hoc attack on your > under-appreciated efforts for the good of all. > > OK, Paul, while expressing my undying gratification and endless respect for > solutions and attempts at solutions to date (seriously!), I humbly request > that you AppleScript a solution to the Office Notifications window. While > you're at it, see if you can AppleScript a solution to the lack of hot-keyed > buttons and improper selection rotation in the Spell Checker window. Oh, and > while you're there, could you do the same for the New Task window? Now, can > you make the keystrokes required intuitive, and seamless such as not to > leave any impression that I have pasted a great big patch on top of a lack > of basic expected HI behaviors? > > When you're done with those, I've got another long list of *HI PROGRAMMING > OVERSIGHTS* that only a few, yourself included, would take the role of > unpaid(?) MS apologist and call them "features" not enough people have > requested; "features" that can simply be addressed by third party > developers. > > God Bless AppleScript. The True Power of Macintosh. Apple's best kept > secret. A killer feature that solves a plethora of problems. But just not > the panacea you make it out to be. > >> In Tiger, OS 10.4, there is going to be a brand new technology you may have >> read about: "Automator". If enough people (like me, or even Microsoft) >> provide enough Automator "actions", you will in fact be able to do your own >> customizations really easily - what AppleScript was meant to do in the first >> place. > > I've spent a lot of time in Automator already, and I'll be damned if I can > find a reasonable fix for the two items we're now focused on. Possible > workarounds? Yes. Elegant? Hardly. So easy and elegant enough to excuse the > problems and oversights we're fixing? Not by a long shot. >> >> But you don't want to hear any of this, right? You just want Microsoft to >> provide you with your own new version, for free, by 5 PM this evening, >> incorporating every feature you can think of. Now. > > Yeah, that would be ideal, but hardly realistic. Oh... wait, you were being > sarcastic, right? Good. 'Cause for a second there I thought you had lost > sight of the demonstrated recognition I have for the difference between a > genuine feature me and ten other guys could take advantage of, and just the > too-long list of oversights and bugs that a programmer and company should > take pride in making sure don't exist, and if they do slip by, to issue > patches and updates as quickly as possible to resolve as many as possible. > If nothing else, by the third or fourth or fifth iteration of the product, > have taken some of their valuable development cycle to be sure to polish > things up, especially those items that have existed since the product was > called something else altogether. >> >>> God I get so sick of hearing that excuse. How many other industries are >>> allowed to raise that dirty flag and make us cower, as though we're to blame >>> for the dirt ourselves. How many other industries can get away with building >>> defective products they have no obligation to fix, and people just keep >>> coming back for more, hoping they can buy their way clean. One day I hope >>> that software users as a whole gather together and say, 'Enough. we've paid >>> you for a fully functional product, and you're not getting another dime out >>> of us until you fix what you sold us and it performs as promised, intended >>> and expected.' > >> OK, now we're talking. Where did you see that Microsoft ever promised you >> shortcuts for changing accounts? > > Oh, c'mon, Paul, I know you're an intelligent man; I know you can read and > write English with the best of us; I suspect that English is even your > mother tongue. Are you seriously going to twist that statement, which > clearly is in reference generally to obvious bugs and HI violations, not > features, but also specifically follows up with the Office Notifications > window example, which is a shining sample of clear bugs -- or inexplicable > bizarre behavior, neither of which is acceptable -- into an unreasonable > expectation of (at least implied) promise of suitability? > > Fine, you can make your case that keystroke access to the Accounts popup is > a "feature", not bug -- and I will just as adamantly make a valid case for > the opposite; but go ahead: defend the Office Notifications window. You are > one of MS's best apologists I've ever seen; I'd love to see the spin you'll > put on that ugly bit of code. > >> Put up or shut up. > > Fine; resume at the ready. Despite your schoolyard bully tactic intended to > "put me in my place", I'll be happy to take over the HI QA at MacBU, and go > head to head with Billy Gates himself to go back and spend the dollars it > takes to polish up all the stupid oversights that exist in Entourage. I'll > even make a presentation that discusses the long-term cost benefits of > treating your customers with a little more respect, instead of too-easily > giving in to the 'you have to expect a few bugs' mantra that, while > perfectly true and not unreasonable at its core, is carried way, way too > far. > > And lest you think I'm an MS hater and can only point fingers at MS, I > assure you that is not the case. I wish I could discuss where and how I am > valued for just this sort of unforgiving commentary by people who make > products you likely use fairly often, or have at least seen and maybe even > praised for their elegance, completeness and user-friendliness. > > Heck, I'll go you one better on your offer above. I use and love MS products > enough on the whole to give up a few weeks of vacation to get access to the > code itself, or at least get direct access to the programming manager's ear, > and spend all the time I can stay awake adding in as much HI adherence as I > can. > > I can nextKeyView away more than a few problems (read: existing features > that are incompletely implemented) in short order, and I think they can, if > they wanted, as well, in a very short period of time, costing very, very > little money comparative to genuine "new features". If I couldn't resolve > the Accounts popup access in less than an hour, and the responsible > programmer, but for it not being on his approved to-do list, couldn't do it > in a third or a sixth less than I, I'd be extremely surprised. I don't > imagine that the ON window misbehavior can't also be cured with similar > minimal effort. > >> Or reduce your noise >> level to asking a little more politely for new features you might want. I >> don't see where you get off referring to minor features you'd like added as >> if they were bugs, which they're not. > > Repeat: Office Notifications window. Not a bug? Really? Explain. Please. > Explain. Please. Please. (: > > In All Good Humor (and with more respect than you're showing me), > > Cheers > > Frederico -- Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes! -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
