| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 20.11.03 20:00l 215 Lines 9622 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2334-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Nov 13, 4/14
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<KP4IG<KD7HAH<GB7BHX<
GB7BHM<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 031120/1713Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:13184 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2334-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Station attributes -was- RE: APRS Icon statistics
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:34:44 -0500
X-Message-Number: 21
On 11/12/03 at 3:42 PM Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>NO, I hope not. If we are to have a tactical communication system that
>conveys THE SAME INFORMATION TO EACH USER INDEPENDENT OF CLIENT SOFTWARE,
>then the INFO as well as HOW it will be displayed needs to be correlated.
>Sure authors are free to bring up any kind of display, or list, or
>function, but when it comes to the fundamentals of what an ICON on a MAP
>means, we need to have consistency as a "communications system" across
>all platforms (as best we can).
People's needs are just not the same. I feel like I have failed to get this
point across very well, let me try an example requiring a real time
tactical system, a toxic spill.
The guy dispatching ambulances needs to see different data (tracking data
for the vehicles, objects indicating evac and staging sites, hospitals,
etc.), than the guy figuring out the dispersion of the toxic gas (who cares
mostly about weather). And neither cares at all about digis, much less what
sort of digi they are, that is something the radio guy struggling to keep
the network up in the face of this disaster needs to see.
Most client program have ways of filtering the data, and you can bet each
of these three guys is going to be doing that. Furthermore, some clients
are stronger in weather display, and others in tracking. Software authors
should be free to tailor their software to particular classes of users, and
users should be free to pick the program that best meets their needs.
To insist that all users be conveyed the same information is
counter-productive, the only way this can occur is for each user to see ALL
the information, even the stuff they do not care about, cluttering up their
displays and making it more likely they will miss something they should
have seen.
Another example, Mission Control. Each of the controllers has completely
different displays, tailored to their needs, but the data all comes out of
a common, real-time stream. Imaging the mess if they all had to have the
same display.
>The fact that I didnt fight the APRSwg to the bitter end on this point is
>what has us in this mess today...
I'm sorry I caved in on the UI things you put into the spec, I wish I had
fought those to the bitter end. I say, it is because this issue wasn't
resolved in a definitive manner that explicitly recognized the right of
each programmer to present data as they and their users see fit is why we
have this mess today!
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MULTI-ICON proposal
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:49:47 -0500
X-Message-Number: 22
Bob, your user interface (at least the last time I used it) was full of
single keystroke commands, cryptic (at best) prompts, and lots of other
idiosyncratic issues. It required a lot of experience to use efficiently
(though yes, once you have that experience, it can be very efficient). No
doubt, there is no chance of me, or most other users being able to walk
into an event and efficiently use your software. I wouldn't even try...
However, even if every software had exactly the same display, so I knew
what the colors meant, which is what we are talking about, it is the use of
your program that would be a mystery to me. The only way you could improve
cross-platform compatibility is to insist that all menu items be identical,
no one use any GUI feature you are not able to implement in APRSdos, never
use a pop-up menu, window, or mouse roll-over. No sophisticated maps,
because an APRSdos could walk in and make a Precision Mapping window or
Tiger map work right.
A couple days ago you denied trying to make all programs work and look the
same, saying they just needed to display the same data, yet here we are
again...
Realistically, if I'm going to be a volunteer in an EOC, and I know they
use xyzAPRS (which I would, you can't just walk into an EOC any longer),
then as part of the personal training I give myself, I will learn to use
that program. This is simply not an impediment...
If there is something that is preventing the wider adoption of APRS among
emergency managers, I'd say it is that none of the APRS programs (including
yours) are able to meet their needs. The answer isn't to further limit the
ways in which a client may develop, but rather to give a developer the
freedom to meet any unmet needs they find!
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Station attributes -was- RE: APRS Icon statistics
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:24:05 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 23
Steve, you dont get it.
When I say the DISPLAY must be the consistent, I mean that EVERYONE should
be able to LOOK at an ICON on ANY "APRS" system and IMMEDAITLEY know if it
is:
1) CURRENT! (meaning, updated within the last net cycle time)
2) OLD! (meaning it is too old to be of interest)
3) MOVING! (meaning this thing may not be here next time)
4) Dead Reckoned (meaning how far it may have traveled since reported)
5) An OBJECT (versus a station)!
6) A station that is probably MESSAGE capable (that you can talk to)
I can give you ALL KINDS of examples of your examples below, where WITHOUT
THE ABOVE INFORMATION, most of the operators are operating in the BLIND,
and the resulting CONFUSION adds to the problems not solves them!
And the fact that MOST APRS CLIENTS dont display the above info is why
APRS is becoming less and less reliable and more of a tower of
babble....!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Station attributes -was- RE: APRS Icon statistics
From: "Tyler Allison" <tyler@allisonhouse.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:29:08 -0400 (GMT+4)
X-Message-Number: 24
>To insist that all users be conveyed the same information is
>counter-productive,
>the only way this can occur is for each user to see ALL the information,
>even
>the stuff they do not care about, cluttering up their displays and making
>it
>more likely they will miss something they should have seen.
You give perfect examples. The APRS protocol needs to agree upon the
"TYPE" of information it will carry and an agreed upon method on which to
decode that information. Any changes or 'enhancements' should be made in
that area. It should be up to the application developers to take the
direction of their users on what and how to display that information. If
you dont like the way UI-View displays the data...fine...pick something
else...I did.
Just look at the tactical networks of this world (eg: army, etc) there
generals get one view and the grunts get another. You dont expect each of
them to see the same data or even to care what the other sees. They want
their data in a fashion that fits their needs.
If APRSdos developers want to display everything and anything and they
believe that will give the edge their users want fine. If someone wants
to write a weather ONLY APRS display system...fine. There should be
absolutely ZERO requirements on how to display the data. There should be
100% requirements on how/what/when/why to transmit said data.
Note: Im just an APRS user...what turned me off of the APRSdos, UI-View
GUI's of this world was it took a Phd and 14 months of studying to learn
how to view something specific I wanted. I bring up Xastir and I can
filter to my hearts content and see the data *I WANT* in a single view. Im
not saying it cant be done in the other systems...*I* found it easier in
Xastir. Im not going to be a happy camper if someone tries to tell *ME*
how Im suppose to view the data and the only reason they give is "because
I know better".
back to lurking,
-Tyler
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MULTI-ICON proposal
From: Mark Earle <wa2mct@mearle.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:26:24 -0600
X-Message-Number: 25
>However, even if every software had exactly the same display, so I knew what
>the
>colors meant, which is what we are talking about, it is the use of your
program
>that would be a mystery to me. The only way you could improve cross-platform
Bob et all.. please take this as constructive, that is how I intend it!
But. I am tired of the cry that everything must work as it does in APRSDos,
or, it must fit on a tiny HT display or it's broke, or, we can't send more
than a few messages of some type because of limited buffer in a Kenwood
mobile.
In other words.. there are more than 3 products out there that folks are
using. They are not all equal in all areas.
I use APRS+SA and if given a choice this is what I set up when asked.
BUT, without too much trouble, have set up and used UIView and WinAPRS
also. It's not that big a deal. The menus are sensible enough to make it
possible.
APRSDos is OK but certainly I would not put it in front of a volunteer and
expect results. I have done this with two of the 3 above programs, and in
15 minutes the volunteer had on the map the desired data.
) ) de WA2MCT Mark
( (
) ) You will be assimilated... oooh, coffee!!
_|****| http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?wa2mct-8 Home
( | | http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?wa2mct-9 Mobile
`|____| wa2mct@mearle.com wa2mct@juno.com www.mearle.com/mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
