<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi William:<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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. <o:p></o:p>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?<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of William Monroe Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:12 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Horse and buggy users.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will,<o:p></o:p><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>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,<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>"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."    <o:p></o:p></div><div>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.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>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.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>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.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>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.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>William R. Monroe<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p><div>On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Encore Pianos <<a href="mailto:encorepianos@metrocast.net">encorepianos@metrocast.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p><div><img border=0 width=303 height=183 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CC46D9.37433260"><o:p></o:p><div> <o:p></o:p>Dear Isreal:<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>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”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>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?”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>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.    <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>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.    <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Will Truitt<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>