Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:02:33 -0500
Reply-To: "Whanger, J. Mr. CTR" <James.Whanger@med.navy.mil>
Sender: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Whanger, J. Mr. CTR" <James.Whanger@med.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues
In-Reply-To: <73C92386B0AD30428B75F45065BA33A0029820@MIAEMAILEVS1.spss.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Kyle,
Your comment about "best practice" to a customer was either
condescending or ill-informed, even if interpreted generously. Either
you were explaining to an obviously experienced user that he was not
doing things "right" or you were not aware of the illogic inherent in
SPSS's rationale for excluding abbreviated syntax. There is no reason
it could not have been included. I suspect it was decided that the
amount of work required to include abbreviated syntax in the color
coding change was not worth the effort. Implicit in this decision was a
willingness to exclude long standing SPSS users from easily using their
years and years of existing syntax with the new color coding function.
If SPSS wants to maintain credibility with their customers, they should
at the very least acknowledge the decisions that were made and the
implications that were deemed acceptable.
Additionally, although a customer advisory board can substantively
inform an analysis of potential implications of changes, it does not
substitute for forethought exercised by programmers, software designers,
and product managers more familiar with the inner workings of the old
and new software. Also, your reply noticeably avoided addressing or
even acknowledging the obvious arrogance that has been displayed on this
LIST by SPSS employees relative to changes in functionality. Quite
frankly I have been shocked by it.
A problem needs to be recognized before it can be changed; that goes for
organizational norms as well as software.
Regards,
Jim
________________________________
From: Weeks, Kyle [mailto:kweeks@spss.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:26 PM
To: Whanger, J. Mr. CTR; SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: RE: Re: Syntax color code issues
Jim, unfortunately, certain things get lost in email like tone and
intent. I was not trying to be dimissive or condescending in any way.
I was simply trying to give an explanation of certian behavior and
trying to clarify why certain things are done. I used SPSS for years
before joining the company and continue to use the software daily. I
also speak with many customers both on and off the list. We do take
changes and the impact they have on users very seriously.
My offers to beta test and/or serve on the customer advisory board were
sincere. Some of our best customer insight and feedback comes from
customers who may be unhappy with certain issues.
Regards.
Kyle
________________________________
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion on behalf of Whanger, J. Mr. CTR
Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 1:06 PM
To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues
Kyle,
I have to say, the tone and perspective you've taken is, unfortunately,
typical of the way in which SPSS has responded for the last few years to
reasonable, appropriate, and legitimate criticisms of new versions of
software. In addition to the example below, criticisms of changes in
functionality have been met with denials that functionality has changed
and defended with illogical arguments premised upon the ridiculous
notion that because the information or process is available elsewhere
within the program, there was no change in functionality. What is one
to conclude from this behavior? Either, there is a substantial lack of
understanding about "functionality" and/or there is a lack of concern
for how changes impact existing customers. Although I have used SPSS for
a long time, this consistently arrogant, condescensing, and dismissive
attitude has resulted in my considering using different software.
Regards,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Weeks, Kyle
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:21 PM
To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues
Harold, would you like to beta test future versions of SPSS Statistics?
Also, would you like to serve on the Customer Advisory Board? This
would consist of answering ad-hoc questions on a variety of issues as
your time permits.
I would like to also extend these invitations to others on the list as
well. If you are interest please let me know.
Regards.
Kyle
-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
HBaize
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 AM
To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues
Unfortunately myself and other long time syntax users were not part of
"great deal of customer input" perhaps because users like myself have
felt abandoned for decades and are not actively communicating with SPSS
inc.
My last comment in the previous post addresses the mistaken idea that
all users are novices who formerly relied on the GUI. A syntax color
coding and autofill use the same ugly all caps verbose syntax as the
paste function of the GUI. I don't want that. If I did I'd type it in
myself in that ugly format. The autofill and paste function are fine for
learning the syntax, but if you really know it you just type and you
don't waste time typing default options or holding down the caps lock
key.
In my case I have hundreds of syntax files going back about 20 years. If
I read them into the new color coding editor only about one third of the
keywords will be highlighted because they're abbreviated. Why couldn't
the editor use the same logic as the syntax parser? I'm not going to
revert to a simple learning mode of a novice just to have color.
Here's an example. If I want to do a simple bivariate correlation I
type:
cor var=varone vartwo.
The GUI would paste:
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=varone vartwo
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
I much prefer the way I type it. If you really know the syntax the first
one is both easier to type and easier to read. The only advantage of the
verbose format of the GUI paste function is in helping novices learn the
syntax. The all caps is just a holdover from the mainframe days. It is
ugly and anyone active in on-line communities considers all caps to be
shouting. It is unnecessary. The parser is not case sensitive. On what
basis is it "best practice" to use all caps and verbose syntax? Where is
the evidence?
>>The abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are
>>really
not best practice.<<
The syntax itself is not uniform across procedures. I would argue the
three character keyword abbreviation is one of the most consistent
features across procedures.
All that would be necessary to make users like myself happy would be to
program the color coding using the same rules as the syntax parser. If
you think about it that is the right way to do it. It is inconsistent to
use different rules for the editor than for the syntax parser. It would
not take anything away from the training of new users though autofill or
the paste function, but it would make the color coding fit the real
syntax of the parser and would work with old user typed syntax files
just as well as those ugly GUI pasted files.
Harold R. Baize, PhD
Evaluations
Butte County Behavioral Health
I am not sure I understand the last comment. The new syntax editor was
a direct response to customer demand and was implemented with a great
deal of customer input.
The behavior mentioned below that originally started this thread, in
which abbreviated syntax is not color coded, is actually by design. The
abbreviation rules are not uniform across procedures and are really not
best practice. The syntax that worked previous will continue to work,
it just will not get color coded as well formed syntax.
Regards.
Kyle Weeks, Ph.D.
Director of Product Strategy, SPSS Statistics SPSS Inc.
kweeks@spss.com
www.spss.com
SPSS Inc. helps organizations turn data into insight through predictive
analytics.
-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
HBaize
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:44 AM
To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Syntax color code issues
I'm glad it works for you. The GUI is fine for a lot of people too, but
logically it should work the same as the syntax parser. I think SPSS
should provide better support for syntax users because if we all jump
ship to R it will eventually sink SPSS inc.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Syntax-color-code-issues-tp20918896p20939530.html
Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list
of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD
=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list
of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD
=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD
====================To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD
