Lady Bumps and Data Dumps

Posted by 22111
Jul 12, 2022 at 09:51 AM

Ad Mad:

Tabs

So my first answer from yesterday is gone; after losing it, I first reloaded recently closed tabs, and before closing any tab, I checked if “behind” the current page in each tab, there was another page: to no avail. So this is just another example that tabs are among the WORST navigational devices, just ok for some 6, 8, perhaps 12 tabs, and allowing to read the respective title (begin), but beyond that number, you need something really better - hence tree form. (Old Firefox add-ins doing this don’t function on newer FF versions anymore…)

Specifics re personally used tools, and re tools not used personally

You, Mad, now criticize for the second time (at least) my doing both, but then:

1) I always say I’ve got my knowledge upon the latter ones by reading web manuals, web comments, viewing YT vids, etc., and e.g. for DT I have viewed several hours of such videos; I also say please correct me if I’m mistaken with some detail, and I never present assumptions as facts.

2) It’s a fact though that my writings about (just some, in fact two) Mac software are the best info anyone considering these software can get in this forum, and any “invitation” by myself, to (quite numerous) real users of these software here, to inform us (i.e. me and prospects for these tools) better than I can do it, are in vain, and it’s a fact, too, that even trialing software (which Mac users would then allegedly do before buying), since in a short time frame and without “real data” - most trialing can’t be more than just “playing around” a little bit in practice -, will not necessarily inform the prospect of the real suitability and appropriateness for their real work then, let alone in the long run, i.e. when additional tasks will have to be realized with that software.

And that’s because the individual as a software prospect does not act as corporations do: the individual will not first build a functional spec, or when they do - which is a rare exception -, they will very probably overlook even requirements which will become apparent as being of high importance later on.

Then though, the software user will be more or less stuck with a piece of software which isn’t really appropriate for their tasks at hand anymore, and most professionals don’t have “crimping” as their favorite hobby. ;-)

Thus, in the absence of real software users’ “interest” in describing the “real work” with their tools here, my “initiative” replaces their lack of interest in “sharing” somewhat.

3) Since, as I have mentioned and then even “underlined” above, software, whenever you look at its specifics, at its purpose (!), and at the “cooperation” of the former with the latter, is NOT interchangeable, or very rarely only, and then only for quite basic tasks.

I don’t have to prove this here, just look at my in part comparative and in every case as detailed as possible software descriptions, even detailing what’s possible “factory-wise”, and for what functionality you’d need some (often simple, sometimes more elaborate) “macros”; of comparative interest in this respect: I can’t remember having read about any such personal “enhancements” of their respective tools here, from other contributors, and even - or should I say: “as more or less expected by me”? - my “invitation” to give some info upon their possible Mac macros to “upgrade” their Mac software “out-of-the-box”... fell flat.

I admit though that a long time ago, I have ceased to read threads re online tools, and these are the majority here, so I might have missed such info over there, albeit I can’t easily imagine how you would apply your own macros to online tools?

At the end of the day and from an objective POV, many of my posts are among the most instructive and useful ones here, but I was mistaken indeed, yesterday, as I wrongly assumed people who risk to get their adrenaline flowing when reading me, could just check for the thread starter (which is standard in standard forum software, and please forgive me, here, when you write, you don’t see any thread if you don’t load them into other tabs).

Unfortunately, I can’t edit existing thread titles, but I promise I’ll try to think of adding some (beware) or similar to any future title. On the other hand, whenever the title isn’t but just technical but presents some copyright-value texting (i.e. threshold of originality for application of copyright law), you know it’s by me, even without a special warning. ;-)