On 09:23 AM 7/02/2001 -0500, Andrew J Jenkins said:
>Ian,
>
>While driving to work this morning, I was thinking about my 
>suggestion-4-improvement some more, after posting my conciliatory reply 
>(re: Solution: help file not found). (at least it will hopefully be viewed 
>as conciliatory, anyway...)
>
>My original point, however badly phrased, was that I feel Protel should 
>post these service pack definitions, not only on its website, but also to 
>the Protel User's group, if for no other reason than as a courtesy. In 
>light of the fact that the KB is in apparent need of updating, this group 
>cannot help but be viewed as Protel's #2 KB...
>
>In terms of the pre-release, I have a cached copy here at work, and it 
>does, as you said, show the fix.
>
>Still, even when reading thru the document, knowing what I'm looking for, 
>I'm somewhat confused by wording, wrt what is a fix and what is an 
>augmented function...it seems to me a sensible revision to generate these 
>docs with some delineator between the two types of code.
>
>Idea:
>
>Repaired:       this or that gizmo that was broken
>
>Added:  this or that gizmo that someone wanted
>
>That way, it is searchable by eye. I don't know whether it's dyslexia or 
>something else, but it seems to me difficult to read.
>
>FWIW,
>
>aj

Actually Andrew you have no reason to be conciliatory.

I just looked back at the SP6 release announcement and it included some 
highlights and a link to the release notes...

I also think that the document is hard to read - like any on-line document 
really.  Your idea of labelling fixes and repairs is well worthwhile.  I 
read the full document, as I am sure a number of others did and yet not one 
of us noted that the issue had been fixed until the CSC and some internal 
support bods pointed it out.  Shows the info in the release notes is not 
sticking.  Your idea and maybe breaking the list into smaller subject areas 
than presently (so under the Design Explorer heading there might be 
additional sub-sections covering say General, Help System, Document 
Sharing/Database Issues etc would improve retention as we would only need 
remember the second level headings.

Minor point but it would have prevented a thread that was about 1/3 of the 
traffic for a day or so.

Ian



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  This message sent by: PROTEL EDA USERS MAILING LIST
*
*  Use the "reply" command in your email program to
*  respond to this message.
*
*  To unsubscribe from this mailing list use the form at
*  the Association web site. You will need to give the same
*  email address you originally used to subscribe (do not
*  give an alias unless it was used to subscribe).
*
*  Visit http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
*  to unsubscribe or to subscribe a new email address.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

________________________________________________________

To leave the EDAFORUM discussion list, send a email with
'leave edaforum' in the body to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'

More Information : http://www.dolist.net

Reply via email to