Jim F. writes:

> Well, shucks! You're apparently talking about something internal now,
> not labeling on a product or package, catalog description,
> advertisement, or contract.

I'll defend myself by pointing out that I mentioned this limitation as
being in our accounting software early in this thread.
> Since this is an internal, coded document, I see no problem, Jim. OTOH,
> if this is what you present to your public, expecting them to make
> heads or tails of your 40-character product descriptions, I suspect
> that investing in more robust file architecture might be well worth the
> dollar spent.

A few of our customers may see a bill of materials with this info, but
most do not.
Regarding "investing in a more robust file architecture": I am afraid that
is not possible. Our accounting/MRP software ran us just short of $100k
for the software, and several times that for the training and
implementation costs. We didn't write it, and we have no ability to change
this limitation. And, we obviously will not be replacing it for something
as minor (albeit irritating) as this.
(Another feature that drives us nuts: whenever you do a search (for a part
number or description, company name, etc.) there is NO case-insensitive
search. Makes me want to choke the software company. Of course, when I get
a little itsy-bitsy file dialog window on my nice 19" monitor, I want to
do the same to Microsoft.)
> You could even keep your own records in that abbreviated,
> coded form and have a "catalog generator" program translate it into
> proper and readable data for public consumption. Even I could write a
> simple record-at-a-time program to reformat the data, so that's
> obviously not too hard.

This could work, presuming we are constistent enough with our abbreviated
formatting. Probably a pretty quick job in Crystal Reports. With as few
customers who see our internal part descriptions, there really is not much
justification.
For now, I think we'll be sticking with our usual format and a few
customers will just have to deal with it.
Jim Elwell

Reply via email to