UI-View Bashing (was Re: APRS RF DX? (Was RE:[aprssig]APRS in Atlanta - flooding the network))

[hasan schiers]

Hmmmm...you make some interesting points, Bob.

1. majority of APRS users these days are blind
to their practical RF ranges becuse not only are
they not asked for their antenna height, but
then the impact of it is not displayed so they
are really missing the most practical aspect of
local RF communicaitons (Antenna height)
which was FUNDAMENTAL to the pricinples
of APRS.

> I like the point about "impact not being displayed". You may have a point. 
> Of course, they may be displaying nonsense, but that's a different 
> problem.

and...

Show it on the map and then people will pay
attention to it and have some incentive
to get it right.

> Similar to the point above, which I liked. However, the PHG circles are 
> not turned on all the time (and since they really uglify a map, I'm 
> betting they will stay turned off most of the time). The result is they 
> may not  see them much or be motivated to act on them. I'm not sure you 
> understand just how much you are asking for.

and...

Actually, I am surprised to get this kind of feedback
from Iowa where i thought it was pretty flat.  It
would seem to be very easy in most cases for
any user to visualize his antenna height.  Unless
agian they are entering height above sealevel.
If so, they yes, we have a big problem...

> We have a big problem in that a LOT of APRS users are indeed, plug and 
> play. It has made for phenomenal growth and interest, but not a lot of 
> depth. It is just one of the things we have to deal with. Most aprs users 
> I meet don't even understand the menu structure or features of the program 
> they have been using for the last "xxx" years. I'm not criticising them! I 
> understand exactly what they are doing. I do it myself at times....but it 
> is a very "real" problem when trying to produce an incentive to use and 
> use properly a minimally useful (if the network already has excellent 
> coverage) aspect of aprs.

And, btw, I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. I like the messenger. He 
gets a little strident at times (but hey, who doesn't), and often has good 
points. So don't take my sentiments about PHG too hard. I watch the network 
a LOT. What I see would curl your hair. PHG is a useful concept. It's the 
implementation of it that I'm not at all sold on. It requires more from the 
user than I observe them being capable/motivated/interested in. 
Fundamentally it is an educational problem, aggravated (I concede) by the 
lack of displaying the PHG information so users might....just might....fix 
something.

The other thing to consider is that the vast majority of aprs networks are 
static. The users know how well they work ...phg doesn't add any value to 
their participation. There needs to be a reason to know something like PHG 
is important. The fact is, if the network is working well, the user has no 
need of PHG whatever. They are called "coverage" circles. If the coverage is 
"there" in reality, then the lack of a circle that says so may be a very 
minor point (for THEM)...while it remains a very big point  for how APRS is 
conceptualized and designed.

Practice vs. Design Concepts....how easy it is to lose control!

73,

...hasan, N0AN



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga at usna.edu>
To: <aprssig at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: UI-View Bashing (was Re: APRS RF DX? (Was RE:[aprssig]APRS in 
Atlanta - flooding the network))