> > Well, the point I was trying to make was: should a tool be as easy to
>> use as possible, by as many people as possible, or should it require
>> specialized training and obscure knowledge?
>
>Actually the point you made in your first message on the issue was that
>some terminology was foreign to "you" and you decided to enforce your
>"demand" to Scott to change it by playing the "average user" and "us"
>card.
As a new MC user, I agree with Jacqueline. If the explanation offered
on the list was part of the documentation, may be the issue with
"blendLevel" would not have arised. It is ideal if the MetaTalk
keywords are self-explanatory. This is not always possible. Keeping
things obscure, thus usable by pros only, is doubtfully the purpose
of MC. I could not help but notice that we have synonyms for quite a
few terms, allowing people with different backgrounds to use the term
that is the most meaningful to them. Scott obviously did it for a
reason.
Andu, please ease up. The aggressive tone of some of your posts helps
nobody. MetaCard is a commercial product and we all paid a chunk of
money for the right to use it. We thus expect the developer to listen
to our vows and try to make it a better tool for each of us. We can
send all of all these directly to Scott, but we should also be able
to post them to the list for the scrutiny of others without worry of
personal attacks or snearing from MC pros. If we do not voice our
issues on the list, Scott may loose some valuable input.
Robert
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
