Subject: From: Date:

Re: [ECS] [Fwd: ECS] Daniel Dubay Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:21:59 -0400

---

Hello Mark,

I believe some of the points mentioned could be helpful.  I wouldn't get
carried away if I were you but a few changes might help.  To improve the
marketability of ECS, I would rank the following:

1)Change install to setup for Win 95.  A quick setup card could be included
with ECS so the first time user could get started with little difficulty.
This would include info on a sound card and modem setup only.  A reference to
the manual for X-10 control setup would also be given.
2)Offer Win95 or DOS versions seperately.
3)Changing the first page of ECS.doc to look good in word for windows should
be simple.
4)Consider making an install shield program that would perform all of the
initial work asking what hardware is present and adding ECS to the start menu
might be worth the effort.
5)Consider giving ECSW a complete windows interface.  I don't know what is
involved with this but windows users do notice that a program is running in a
dos window.

Dan Dubay


Mark Gilmore wrote:

> I would appreciate any constructive criticism regarding
> the following comments from a frustrated installer.
>
> Please do NOT respond to him, as I did not get his permission.
>
> BTW, The install directions ARE in the README.TXT (I downloaded
> it and checked), and I think he ran SETUP instead of INSTALL.
>
> Should I rename *.DOC to *.TXT to avoid various editors from
> assuming a format other than plain text ?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Mark Gilmore
> Omnipotence
> http://members.a2zsol.com/omnipotence.html
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: ECS
> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:06:21 -0400
> From: Harold Harrington <haroldhar@erols.com>
> To: Mark Gilmore <markgilmore@cococo.net>
> References: <35CE1137.7E15B8A6@erols.com> <35CF0DF0.65C6C07E@cococo.net>
>
> The install program appears to fail if there is a long name with spaces
> in the fully qualified file name.  When setup starts it appears to run
> as a 16 bit DOS application.  I do not generally view that as
> acceptable. When I was in setup it failed immediately with the message
> "Invalid startup directory, please check your pif file"; not a real NT
> flavor message.  It showed the file name E:\downlo~1\X10\setup.exe.  It
> was clearly having trouble with the path E:\downloads\X10\setup.exe.  My
> experience with installs like this is that they are also sufficiently
> unsophisticated to avoid damaging the system by replacing newer files
> with old ones.  Now I could make this run by building a new directory
> with a DOS compliant name. But, it will also prevent placing the
> executable where it is supposed to go  x:\Program Files\.
>
> Your read.me file's only information about installing is for a pure DOS
> environment. And it does not actually tell a person how to install, just
> how to unzip.  I suspect most users will simply drag the file to WINZIP
> or something of that ilk to unzip it. While I do not need this
> information, it again says "old, DOS, unsophisticated".  It is also  a
> VERY  ugly text file.  It is full of capital A's with a pair of dots
> over them.  I assume that is from lines or something you used in the
> text.  But you did not bother to look and see what they look like in
> Notepad; probably the single most likely program that the user will use
> to view the file.  You did not understand that in Windows (any version)
> .DOC means Word.
>
> All of these things, rightly or not, say to me this is not an up-to-date
> program regardless of what the vendor's words on the web say.  It says
> to me that here is an old DOS or UNIX or something programmer that
> simply has not kept up to date.  Why should I trust any code this person
> or persons has created.  There are install programs available that
> simply so not have these problems and I expect anything I intend to pay
> money for to be using them. You are selling a not-inexpensive program
> here (full version).  It would be the most expensive piece of software I
> purchased for quite some time and I have some generally high end office
> applications.
>
> When I evaluate a product, I install and evaluate a product.  I do not
> expect to have to change standard conventions (\Program Files\) to
> accommodate them.  I do not go to opinion boards after the product fails
> to perform.  The product has to work the first time "out of the box",
> and it has to work as I expect any current commercial product to work.
> You may have an excellent product when it is finally installed, but the
> whole package has to be at that level. I have scanned your .doc file and
> the program has some very interesting features.   However, I believe
> from a marketing standpoint your product makes a very bad first
> impression for the reasons I have stated.
>
> You may well disagree with all of this since you clearly have not
> believed it necessary to do it differently.  It may be I am alone in
> these views; a distinct possibility.  There may be also be more of us
> who simply don't take the significant amount time to send a detailed
> memo; we just don't use it.  I have looked at a couple of other X10
> programs in the last few days.  One in particular has such wretched
> thinking behind its' user interface that I would not consider using it
> under any circumstances.  It would be so simple for the author to make
> the interface user friendly. It looked like he was just enamored with
> the new tools in his VB (?) tool kit and wanted to use as many of the
> cute things as possible.  His choices are those of someone with no
> understanding of human interface design. He failed in the same manner as
> many web sites in losing sight of the fact that the user is trying to do
> work or get information, not watch detailed pictures of the company
> headquarters or animated whatevers. Even when he sat there and tested it
> you would have thought he would have noticed it was ill-thought. But I
> am not sending them a note.
>
> The HTML thing - when I started sending the email Netscape generated a
> message (which I do not see very often although I use a lot of email)
> that said essentially that the recipient did not accept HTML.  Why this
> was generated I do not know.

---