Robert Brenstein wrote:
>
> > > 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.
I apologize for loosing my temper. In the process I also managed to
switch the focus from the more important points of my posts.
> 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
>
Andu
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.
