Franz Grieser
12/3/2013 5:35 pm
Hi.
No, I don't. I even wrote a review about PhraseExpress in my magazine recommending it to my readers (that was before it showed the strange behaviour).
I exchanged emails with Gunnar Bartels several times (but not regarding the problem we're talking about here, because I could not reproduce it - because of PE's strange behaviour). I found him helpful - I even mentioned that in this forum .
I did not say the instructions in your videos were not clear. I even mentioned the videos in my review.
BUT the videos - at least at the time, I used PE - did NOT say anything about the strange behaviour.
I type the abbreviation, PE expands it. THIS time I do not want that, so I undo the expansion.
Next time, I type the abbreviation - chances are high that I want it expanded. After all, that's the reason why I defined the abbreviation-expansion combination.
If PE suddenly does stop doing what it was purchased for - that's annoying.
Even more annoying is: That the third time PE changes behaviour again.
Don't you understand that a user wants software to work this way: When the user does A, he wants the software to reliably do B. He doesn't want it to do C and then the next time again B. How do you expect your users to rely on the software, if it does strange things ("by design")?
Franz, you probably mix up PhraseExpress with another program.
No, I don't. I even wrote a review about PhraseExpress in my magazine recommending it to my readers (that was before it showed the strange behaviour).
I exchanged emails with Gunnar Bartels several times (but not regarding the problem we're talking about here, because I could not reproduce it - because of PE's strange behaviour). I found him helpful - I even mentioned that in this forum .
You find clear notifications including calls to action during each step.
When clicking a call to action you will be guided directly to the
program setting. It even points to the corresponding option in the user
interface.
Please tell us how this could be done any clearer and easier to use?
I did not say the instructions in your videos were not clear. I even mentioned the videos in my review.
BUT the videos - at least at the time, I used PE - did NOT say anything about the strange behaviour.
>Wait. Did I get it right?
>I type an abbreviation. PE replaces it. I undo the replacement once.
The
>next time, I type the abbreviation, PE does not replace it (but it will
>replace it the time after that).
>Correct?
Correct.
>I don't get why you do that?
Franz, I tried to explain it in the very posting above. here it is
again:
>>The feature detects if you undo a text replacement. PhraseExpress then
>>assumes that you didn't want this text replacement in this particular
>>situation and suppresses the text replacement the very next time you
>>enter the associated abbreviation for one single time. Afterwards, it
>>would execute the text replacement again.
In other words: If you undo a text replacement it is not too far out of
any imagination that you did that undo for a purpose: Because you
probably didn't wanted the text replacement. We had no other idea why
you would want undo the text replacement this way. That is why
PhraseExpress ignore the abbreviation the very next time you retype the
abbreviation.
I type the abbreviation, PE expands it. THIS time I do not want that, so I undo the expansion.
Next time, I type the abbreviation - chances are high that I want it expanded. After all, that's the reason why I defined the abbreviation-expansion combination.
If PE suddenly does stop doing what it was purchased for - that's annoying.
Even more annoying is: That the third time PE changes behaviour again.
Don't you understand that a user wants software to work this way: When the user does A, he wants the software to reliably do B. He doesn't want it to do C and then the next time again B. How do you expect your users to rely on the software, if it does strange things ("by design")?