Mikael Byström sez: >Yes, but your implicit message was that the interface couldn't be >improved to give better expectations. I disagree. >
I don't think I said that, either. I don't like it when people take my "implicit" meaning instead of what I write, and only what I write. My later email to another person clearly says I agree that improvements are likely needed. >Feel free to prove me wrong here. I'm not trying to. Never was. Just making suggestions and I've never searched for characters like yours so don't know the full extent of the issue. As I said before, and in a second email to another person, if this ö - o thing is an issue then it likely needs addressing. Where I disagree is that whether the current search engine can do it or can be tweaked without a major overhaul to another search engine. You may be right about all the object programming stuff you said. I don't know enough about programming to say. >I suppose their biggest problem is >that they'd have to acknowledge there was a problem to begin with. Definitely true, since even the users can't agree there is a problem -- or at least agree on the magnitude of the problem. At any rate, I don't want to get deeper into this because I feel animosity crops up on this list whenever this topic comes up, and I'm not trying to be that way. If I revisit it too much, I fear I'll be painted one way or the other,and, honestly, when it comes to the search engine I'll adapt to whatever comes up. HTML mail is another story for me, though. But that's another email thread. :) -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
