[Elecraft] Feature request

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Options yes, absolutely. 

I have no desire to force my operating style on anyone and don't want anyone
else's style forced on me. 



"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may
never get over." Ben Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ian White GM3SEK
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 3:34 PM
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Feature request

Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>I have to disagree ... quick split would cause too may other problems 
>like losing the frequency if one has already set VFO B (subreciever) to 
>the desired place.
>
>Except for actions explicitly designed to change frequency (tune the 
>VFO, change band, recall a memory, etc.), the user interface should 
>never change the frequency and it should never change the frequency of 
>the "other" VFO.
>

This shows why everything needs to be an OPTION - there are so many
different operating styles.

The industry-standard "quick split" function is designed for people whose
operating style is to tune the DX station on VFO A, and then want a quick
way to set the up the rig to call on a split frequency using VFO B (and the
sub-rx if available).

Quick split has become an industry standard because significant numbers of
users do find it valuable, for two major reasons:

1. Speed
2. Reducing the risk of errors - above all, avoiding the cardinal sin of
transmitting on the DX frequency.

Users of quick split know all about its disadvantages too. Obviously, quick
split will not be suitable for all circumstances (it would be great to have
the option to make it a PF toggle). Obviously, any existing VFO B frequency
will be lost. Also any pre-configured split can only be an individual
operator's best guess, so it needs to be configurable; but *any* offset is
better than zero - see point 2 above.

Even people who value quick split will only use it when the advantages
override those disadvantages.  They are also aware of others who would not
like this function, wouldn't need it, or simply can't see how any sane
person could ask for such a thing. That's fine, because it is being
requested as an *option*. If Elecraft does decide to introduce it, there
would be no adverse impact on anyone who doesn't wish to enable it.

It may also be well to remember that the *only* purpose of discussion about
feature requests is to set out the issues for Elecraft to consider. The rest
is up to Elecraft.


-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html