Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh
From: suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: USENET REVIEWS & USENET Seal of Approval
Message-ID: <518@cunixc.columbia.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 88 04:36:46 GMT
References: <540@lakesys.UUCP> <5677@swan.ulowell.edu>
Reply-To: suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 68
Summary: Best of Both Worlds

In article <5677@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes:
>However ... it's not what I had in mind.  The "USENET Seal of Approval"
>only certifies that the program is well-behaved, and doesn't attempt
>to test all the functions looking for bugs, or determining ease of use.
>In effect, it's not a 'review' at all.
>
>I suppose the two could be combined into one, but what I wanted was
>a checklist of things that programmers fall into when they program the
>Amiga.  If Everything was done OK, they get the approval.  If even one
>thing fails, they don't get the OK.

>So just what am I talking about, you ask?  Here are some quick thoughts,
>off the top of my head:
>
> Does it call Delay(0)?
> Does it call WaitForChar(0)?
> Does it take over the machine?
many more examples like this follow...
>
>..Bob
>-- 
>Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept.  page@swan.ulowell.edu  ulowell!page
>		"Nicaragua" is Spanish for "Vietnam."

I can see Bob's point of view.  I guess there are still many more things
that can be added.  For example:

	Is the interface card Zorro II compatible?
	Does the peripheral pass the bus?
	Does the peripheral have its own power source?
	etc.

I am sure that many users (I am not going to open a can of worms by
saying "most average users".) would be mislead by the "Usenet Seal of
Approval" in the sense that Bob puts it.  Many people, including myself,
would probably avoid a program that passed Bob's checklist but did not
have a nice user interface.(Please don't address the problem of what a
nice user interface is and is not.)  Subjective things are still
important.  Maybe it would be possible for the "Usenet Seal of Approval"
to consist of two parts:

	1) Design of the program - Bob's suggestion
	2) Miscellaneous
	     For software:
		well documented
		good user interface
		"fast"
		etc.
	     For hardware:
		well documented
		ease of installation
		etc.

Let's come up with some criteria!  If a product fails, then let's say
why.  I don't want to rush things too quickly.  I must admit that I
didn't think of judging a program at that level, but I am sure that this
would get companies to check on these things themselves, especially when
porting software over from non-multitasking environments.


/ken

Kenneth Suh                            PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU
312 McBain Hall, C/O Carman Hall             SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET
Columbia University                          ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh
New York, NY 10027