William, I have read this post and your following post with Ron Nossaman. Your answers read like the “mystery meat” we used to have to eat at lunch in high school. People have been asking for details and specifics for quite a while on bug fixes, etc. . You give me “I think HL can work better for us”. As my daughter used to say when she was 8, “Well, DUH!” “Based on my experience at council, we are going to be seeing improvements in the future.” Wow, now that’s something I can really sink my teeth into. That explains EVERYTHING in a depth greater than is possible for my limited comprehension. (That’s sarcasm, by the way). So your experience with HL is a positive one, yes? The inference seems to be that all those other people must therefore be wrong in their experience. What is missed here is that our fellow piano technicians come to the list with a very wide range of experience with computers as well as native intelligence. I’m not going to demean anyone with limited ability to understand or a lack of experience. I just think that what computer geeks feel comfortable using may be a very different experience for those closer to the other end of the spectrum. If we have software that these people can readily use, then we have really succeeded, because it will be easy to use for everybody. It doesn’t have to be dumbed down either. And if high participation is a more important measure of success, then we have the best of all worlds. I can use the HL software. But it remains unwieldy and awkward, and takes too many steps. “The discussion must remain in context to be valid”. What does that mean? I would say that on the one hand, those who have been critical of the HL software have been very specific in the details of their criticisms. With rare exception, those criticisms and their content have not been spoken to. And most of what we have gotten in return have been vague generalities and little more than someday we’ll fix something. Who is getting back to us? Is it you? Do you really think your answers qualify as a meaningful, good faith discussion? Respectfully, we are not on the same side of this issue. You may be polite William, but you are also glad-handing us. I am dismayed, because it’s just more of the same. Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of William Monroe Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:25 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Horse and buggy users. Thanks for the spirit, Will On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Encore Pianos <encorepianos at metrocast.net> wrote: Hi William: I appreciate the civility of your reply even as I may have differing views on some things. I will try to respond in the same spirit. First, I am pleased that the Member Max portion of the new software is working very well for the home office. Why wouldn’t I be? That’s wonderful. I won’t tell them not to use it. End of discussion there. OK But, as we all know, Member Max and Higher Logic are two separate animals that don’t necessarily have to exist together. Each serves different functions, and the fact that one works well doesn’t mean that the other works well too. Because it doesn’t. I’m not going to flog you with all the reasons why, safe to say we have beaten that into the ground already and there is no need to repeat ourselves. I disagree. I think HL can work better for us and I believe (based upon my experience at council) that we are going to be seeing improvements in the future. The context that I have thought of a Paradigm Shift is one where, when one changes the way in which a thing is made or used, the earth shifts underneath us and the way we do things changes dramatically, and we are carried along by a new way of doing things that is so obviously better. The Paradigm Shift occurs not because it is a new way of doing things, but ultimately because the new method is obviously and indisputably better. HL is a new way of doing things, yes, but it is demonstrably not better than the old system at the most basic levels of functionality. I’m not talking sexy here, just nuts and bolts functionality for the things most of us need to do all the time. I bring up Occam’s Razor, because it does speak very much to good interface design, things that we want to see in good software, no matter what it is. The fact that I can learn to use HL doesn’t mean that it is good software, or that it is the best choice for what we want to do. It is poorly organized , and takes too many steps for us to do things. The interface sucks. OK, paradigm shift is extreme. Parallel shift is what I see. There are changes and it's different. There are advantages, as many have pointed out, and there are disadvantages, as many have pointed out. I would disagree that the interface "sucks." Portions of it are a step backward - for me the only disadvantage I experience is in how we must resize photos to attach. Beyond that, it works the same for me as did the previous list (this one). I think that you preclude the possibility of a real discussion about the problems of HL by changing the subject to its integration with the whole package. Call it distraction or deflection, but we never get to a real in depth discussion of the program back and forth with the people who are in the position to do something about it. And that is why so many of us have been frustrated. Again, I disagree. I just think that the discussion must remain in context to be valid. Real discussion on improving the new system is happening, and will continue to happen. I understand that you feel the back and forth about the "listserv" portion of the new system hasn't been happening, but I know that these criticisms ARE being worked on. I hope there is something in the posted "pianotech live" meeting that contributes here. I haven't listened to it yet. Since the National, no one has gotten back to the list to tell us what was discussed and what was decided in Council about HL. I had been of the impression that the lines of communication had opened enough that the officers and the home office finally understood that doing so was important. My suspicion is that it was decided to let the barbarians rant, and then just go ahead and do what you were going to do all along anyway. I will readily label that as mere suspicion, since no one has told us readers of the list who were not in KC or at council what happened. Whose responsibility is that? What confidentialities would be violated by sharing what went on in open council? What was decided about HL and/or there Forum software? My prediction will be that time windows for improvement in HL for speed, bugs, and interface changes will come and go. How do you know when a software developer is lying? Their spokesperson’s mouth is moving. That’s the industry standard. Will As you have seen, someone is "getting back to us" about the events at the Annual. I do hope that answers some questions. Again, I think we've got to relax and take it easy on our volunteers a bit. In the end, we HAVE to realize that we are all on the same side, the board included. The actions that have been taken were taken in good faith, and were taken in an attempt to improve things for the membership. It's not a conspiracy - what would be the point? The majority of the board are VOLUNTEERS, and piano technicians like us. Again, we're on the same side people. William R. Monroe From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of William Monroe Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:12 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Horse and buggy users. Will, I can't say that I condone Israel's approach to "encouraging" everyone to use the new system. I can say, however, that your suggestion, you quoted, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments [if] one suffice”. That’s a pretty good measure for any software interface design. By that measure, to claim that the new HL forum software represents a paradigm shift is laughable." It is essential that everyone who reads this forum (and who will eventually be using the new system) understands that the paradigm shift (it really is) reaches far beyond email lists. The new software works wonderfully for so much of what the home office needs it to do to track and maintain membership, communications, and the integrating so many needs for the organization - of which the email list is only one. Please understand, I value the list as much as anyone, and I don't mean to imply that the new system is as simple as the old. Neither do I intend to denigrate any of it's users. However, there are other considerations for PTG besides the list. The new software does a remarkable job filling the needs of the PTG and incorporating the lists as well. I'll say it again because it is extremely important that we on the list fully understand: the needs of PTG are much more than just the list. To be sure, the list is important and it was considered. And, it does continue to function on the new software. It is absolutely different. It is in some ways more troublesome. It is in some ways better. List folks (and I include myself in that number) need to move past the initial frustrations, log on, take the time to get set up as your needs see fit, and learn to use it. If we simply refuse to use it, it will never work for us. I'm discovering that as I use it more, it becomes vastly simpler. Again, the new software is a big step forward for the PTG on the organizational level. It may complicate the list function for a bit until we all take the time to learn to use it effectively, but it will happen. William R. Monroe On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Encore Pianos <encorepianos at metrocast.net> wrote: Dear Isreal: Hmmmm . “:fellow luddites”, “horse and buggy drivers complaining how difficult it is to start a car”, “horseshit”, “can the attitude”, “small but loud group who refuse to develop basic web skills” “files YOU PEOPLE were shoving onto my computer (caps added by me, wow, a conspiracy, what fun!) “massaging each other’s egos” And now for the real kicker, “the relatively minor glitches that any paradigm shift entails”. PARADIGM SHIFT?????!!!!!!!!, Isn’t that a bit like a 2 ½ foot tall guy dunking the ball into a basket 2 feet off the ground and claiming “player of the year?” Jon Page doesn’t need me to defend him and I won’t speak for him. I will say that I have met Jon and spent a little time with him, and have followed his posts on the forum over the past years. Somehow, luddite never enters my mind when I think of Jon. And please note that the group of people you describe as luddites and horse and buggy drivers includes the following people, if we are including those who have expressed their lack of enthusiasm for the new forum: Del Fandrich, Ron Nossaman, Dale Erwin, David Andersen, and David Love; amongst many ohers. I admire both Del and Ron for their approach to problem solving and design, because they so well apply these variations on “Occam’s Razor”, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” and “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. It is always a sign of an elegant and penetrating mind to seek the simplest and most direct solution.that fulfills all necessary criteria. I think this saying from Saint Thomas Aquinas is most topical when thinking of software, particularly the HL PIanotech web software: "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments [if] one suffice”. That’s a pretty good measure for any software interface design. By that measure, to claim that the new HL forum software represents a paradigm shift is laughable. Will Truitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20110720/b7f7b27c/attachment-0001.htm> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4863 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20110720/b7f7b27c/attachment-0001.jpeg>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC