Dear Dz-Jay, @5-Sep-2004, 09:38 -0400 (05-Sep 14:38 UK time) DZ-Jay [DJ] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Roelof:
DJ> <!SNIP!> >> Whereas what Allie said was that Ritlabs had to satisfy a lot of >> customers. Some need another UI, some need one bugfix or another. When >> you're a company and 100 users need a bugfix and 1000 users need a UI >> (or state that they didn't buy the software because of the UI). DJ> Bug fixes, by their very nature, require prioritizing, Correct. DJ> as they are functional deficiencies, which impede use at the most, DJ> and annoy and frustrate users at the least. Incorrect. Bugs are functional deficiencies that impede at worst, yes, but the least effect of a bug is to not even affect the majority of users. Such a bug is a low priority bug. DJ> And make no mistake, "a 100 users" do not need bugfixes, the DJ> *product* itself requires them in order to be complete and fulfill DJ> RitLabs' original commitment to its paying customers. You have a very mistaken view of the software market. The only bug-free software is very small and very limited in functionality. I've only been working in this field for 30 years - this is a fact, believe it! DJ> I agree that the UI could use a facelift and would benefit from a DJ> usability study, yes that is also an important thing. Precisely everybody else's point. DJ> But again, focusing on this and the addition of new non-core DJ> features to the detrement of the quality and functionality of the DJ> product itself, Who said that was what happened? It isn't. This has been explained over and over. While the responsible programmers who were familiar with the code focused on the buggy functionality, what would *you* have paid the idle staff to do? Go home? Take a holiday? They don't know the code behind the bugs and it is not cost effective to force them to work on it while the responsible programmers were doing so. If anything, such a procedure could slow down the bug-fixing effort while the new programmers received on-the-job training. Instead, the new programmers were effectively employed on the equally essential face lift. It just happened that the face-lift code was finished before all the bug fix code was in. Just because you don't understand the complexities of a multi-person software project, no need to waste bandwidth arguing a corner that doesn't make sense, is there? DJ> not to mention the promises made when v2.x was introduced, is just DJ> plain wrong. That's another issue. Yes, promises have been broken. That's bad marketing. RIT's marketing department need to take a long hard look at that as a matter of policy. Do you know what I think the outcome will be? No more feature promises. Marketing rules in the sales-centric universe that our flawed western society has created. I'm not happy about that and it doesn't speak well to ethics. But it is where we live. DJ> Specially when history shows that it is very probable that the DJ> introduction of new features can introduce its own legion of bugs, DJ> and increase the complexity of the application. ... and while this is true, the product cannot stand still because of competition and new market demands. Every review of TB ever published has slammed it for its outdated interface. I know what I'd do if I were its publisher. Exactly what they have done! >> You are one of those 100, so apparently you don't like the >> decision, but that doesn't make Ritlabs priorities wrong, only >> different from yours. DJ> RitLabs priorities are wrong, whether you want to agree with DJ> my comments or not. ... only in your (and a couple of other equally ill-informed and unsympathetic individuals). In my opinion, the programmers have it right and the marketing department have made an error. Then again, with the huge facelift, I can see why too. It's not press-worthy to launch "Shiny new The Bat! Version 2.13.0x announced - look at the shiny new XP front end / enhanced IMAP / blah blah". Press release about the all-new look for version 3 and you break into markets you couldn't touch before. So the only error is in the treatment of the existing user base. ... <snip> DJ> ... plenty of old bugs that have not even been addressed in the DJ> least, which shows a poor development process and a lack of DJ> commitment to quality. And yet, the fixing of bugs is an ongoing process. They continue to work on them. Some bugs take longer to fix than others and, at some point, you have to replace a bug-ridden release with a less bug-ridden release. It's ridiculous to say that a software company can leave bug-ridden versions on sale just because they didn't fix *all* the bugs. And that's what you're saying. -- Cheers -- //.arck D Pearlstone --List moderator and fellow end user TB! v3.0.0 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 '
pgpoiXbp22ppC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________ Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
