I thought I was asking for equal treatment...for the GUI (i.e the normal path the user takes) to behave the same no matter which side of the QSO you're on.
Answer this one question: Is RRR an implied 73 or not? If it is then it should be treated in the GUI just like a 73 is. I take it you don't use the auto log feature? At worst we could make this another option along the same lines as the 73 logging is an option now. My goal is to reduce mouse moves and clicks and have the same experience on both sides of the conversation. Would you accept this as a separate option? As a separate option it would help even more to each users about using RRR without the added 73. 73 Mike W9MDB -----Original Message----- From: Joe Taylor [mailto:j...@princeton.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:43 AM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] RRR as 73 Mike -- > But that only works if you are the receiver whereas the CQ'r is stuck > manually doing these things after message#5. And yes, I know it's > just two extra clicks and one extra mouse move but they are totally > unnecessary if we just treat the two sides the same - equal > representation and all that stuff donchya' know!! You're not asking for equal treatment. When G0XYZ sends "K1ABC G0XYZ 73" he knows that the QSO is complete. When K1ABC sends "G0XYZ K1ABC RRR" he knows only that he has all desired information. He *hopes* that G0XYZ will receive his acknowledgment of same, and then the QSO will be complete. I'm sure you understand that the history and pedigree of WSJT(-X) lies in the VHF-and-up world, especially for paths like meteor scatter and EME. For good reasons, "ping jockeys" and "moonbouncers" tend to be rather fussy about what constitutes a legitimate minimal QSO. By longstanding tradition, a valid contact is taken to be one where both operators during the contact have (1) mutually identified each other (2) received a report (or other information such as a locator), and (3) received a confirmation of the successful identification and the reception of the report. It's understood that responsibility for the integrity of the contact always lies with the operator. At HF, especially in contest of pile-up circumstances, I'm perfectly happy to log QSOs of the following form (and similarly brief ones): CQ K1ABC W9XYZ W9XYZ 599 MA 599 WI TU K1ABC Signal strength, timing of transmissions, etc., can leave no reasonable doubt in either operator's mind that the contact is complete. Again: responsibility for integrity of a contact (and if/when it gets logged) lies with the operator. -- 73, Joe, K1JT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
