Back in the days when Lyn Hadley had the title of Ombudsman, he took it personally if anyone said that something was BAD (for the newbies, Broken as Designed) or WAD (Working as Designed), and tried to eliminate that kind of response from the IBM vocabulary. If something is WAD, but the design had problems, he took action without requiring pleas from the user groups. Come on, Alan. He wasn't a bigger man than you, was he? :-) (Yeah, times have probably changed.)
There are times when a one size fits all solution will work very well. This, to me, seems to not be one of them. Chip's adjective works for me. Regards, Richard Schuh > > > > No, sorry. If the documentation (procedures or > requirements) is not > > clear, then THAT is APARable. > > Which makes the documented procedure or requirements just > plain FUGLY. Time for a SHARE Requirement? > > -Chip- >
