Feedback regarding a companies comments on user expectations

Yes - in that case I say that an NDA is needed to work with the device. It makes a difference.

edit: and in that case I don't blog about the device. I don't write about a device where I had to sign an NDA for.

Unless its an "open" device, there is always going to be info that's missing...

That is true.

I talk about closed devices if I can use them without NDA.

Once I have to sign an NDA to get something working that does not work without that info, I stop talking about it in public. No issue using it for private/company designs.

It's a choice.

edit: that's the reason why I never blogged about two TI CC3xxx WiFi microcontrollers that they sent me.

Well most of the released stuff can be used with readily available info, otherwise the product is a failure. No point on releasing a product that nobody can figure out how to use. Was that TI micro a prerelease?

Yes, it was a pre-release. But I only got informed I needed an NDA when trying to use it. Not when they asked me to review it.

It's a common practice to provide pre-releases under NDA. They probably don't want competitors to get an edge on unreleased products

I have read your review and the response comprehensively. It seems that your review did raise a number of issues, all of which I would think are valid observations especially for those who have never used this particular kit or combination before.

From my point of view, the response you received while perhaps a bit unpolished, is the exact kind of candid response that I often appreciate. It pays to look beyond the way the thoughts are expressed and see what is trying to be conveyed. From my reading, I feel that the response:

• acknowledges that it can be difficult to understand motor control theory (and that's one reason I haven't dived into such RoadTests myself).
• acknowledges that their documentation is perhaps not as complete as it could be, while also providing a counterpoint that it is not intended to teach the user the fine art of motor control as it is something of a "dark art".
• provides some hints as to other documentation which might be relevant (but I didn't assess whether it is helpful or not).
• explains that the item is perhaps more targeted towards professionals that might have a better idea as to what all the parameters may mean.
• provides a counterpoint that having the additional parameters is a feature especially in the case of professionals with demanding motor drive requirements.
• attempts to explain some of the unexpected behaviour and possible remedies.
• provides a justification as to product positioning, with an alternative product in case of greater needs.
• acknowledges that some changes may be necessary.

I do think the expression may be slightly poor or be misinterpreted as defensive/blaming the user, but this is something I've come to worry about less and less as many may not have English as their first language and really intend to be helpful rather than confrontational. But it's also quite likely that this particular contact within the company may also be willing to have a more rapid back-and-forth communication into the future as things change or new questions arise.

This is contrasted to cases where I may have a RoadTest with technical issues and end up contacting them via their marketing team playing "gatekeeper", such that every single problem report takes two weeks to turnaround as an official investigation is launched, a report is written, solutions are discussed and then someone has to draft an e-mail back to me with the absolute minimum of details in the hopes they won't accidentally admit fault. Incidentally, those companies that have this kind of workflow often can "lose" the clarity of the reports and replies as they pass through many hands and are "corrupted" by careful ass-covering. Just my 2c.

- Gough

Your benevolent perspective of the vendors response is one way to placate the reader. There are two points in your response that raise my ire.

P1: "It seems that your review did raise a number of issues, all of which I would think are valid observations especially for those who have never used this particular kit or combination before."

P2: "It pays to look beyond the way the thoughts are expressed and see what is trying to be conveyed."

Why does P1 entitle the vendor a pass? My investigation didn't uncover any knowledge limits or expectations that could be used by the reader. I didn't find the disclaimer that indicated "If you find this information is incomplete or inconsistent you must be a novice and don't have sufficient knowledge to be using it". Other than understanding acronyms, how would higher learning have changed the inconsistencies of QUICK Start Guide references?

I am reluctant to condone the approach you suggested in P2 because it requires a subjective approach.  What effective protocol standard permits the transmitter to send what ever they feel like and leave it up to the receiver to interpret what is received?

Justin Halpern wrote a book called Shi#! My Dad Says using quotations made by Halpern's father, Sam, regarding various subjects. After I read the book, I thought, this is stuff I would like to say but something in my understanding of social order tells me it is not appropriate. Something in the message motivated kas.lewis  to ask for feedback from the group. I speculate he perceived a tone in the message that didn't align with what he felt was appropriate. I read the review before reading the vendor comments. I then read the vendors comments and felt something I labelled as dismissive.

Now I could use your P2 suggestion and try and find the good in the message. Unfortunately my teeth are long in technology careers and find the suggestion demeaning and requires me to feel contrite. It is formula for acceptance or acquiesce. The alternate interpretation offered by the vendor, I find is not appropriate and I am not willing to give them a pass.

I believe the RoadTest review program offers great value to vendors for minimal investment on there part. I believe my perspective is standing up for the program. I respect your commentary but remain with a dissenting opinion. 

Sean

For me, as non-native English speaker it sounds dismissive too. Talking down.

colporteur  wrote:

Why does P1 entitle the vendor a pass?

To be fair, I never said it did. I always provide feedback to manufacturers in my RoadTests which even include itemised lists of errors in documentation. Poor documentation can cause safety issues, can destroy products and can waste time - I would agree that quality documentation and support is very important for development-type products.

I had only expressed it in the way I did to make clear that some of the perceived issues (e.g. with the number of bewildering parameters and options) would not in itself necessarily be a problem for someone who may be a professional in motor drives. It was not meant to be understood as giving a vendor a free pass to leave things in its status quo.

If you go and buy yourself a Porsche, you won't expect the manual to include a complete guide to high-performance driving ... likewise, there are reasonable limits to be expected for some of these things, and from my perspective, this will vary depending on the purchaser's existing level of familiarity with the class of products and the field. This kit is not targeted at people like myself who know absolutely nothing about motor drives - but as to whom it actually targets, this is more "implied", hence I acknowledged the validity of the observations up-front.

colporteur  wrote:

I am reluctant to condone the approach you suggested in P2 because it requires a subjective approach.

In my younger days, I would have said the same. In an ideal world, communication would be precise and concise with no room for ambiguity, but unfortunately, that's often not the case. I was blind to this before, but I guess, the more I take to reading other people's work and writing my own, the more I begin to appreciate the greys and try to ensure that I don't write something that would be too easily misinterpreted. After all, to be human is to embrace the subjectivity of life, even though it is something that (as an engineer) I find difficult at times.

But sometimes, it's all about making sure you have some thick skin and sleep well at night. There are more important things than the polish on a few words. I've met some Chinese vendors in the past who had a very terse, confrontational response, but this was because they were not able to communicate effectively in English, relying on phrase-books and online translators. Without any non-verbal cues, intent can be quite hard to judge, but I'm defaulting to presume the best rather than the worst.

Instead, I find that every communication is a chance to open a dialogue (for better or for worse) - in fact, the regime we live in is basically what you have described just there. I can write whatever I feel like I mean, but depending on your command of the language (and even the ever-changing definition of the language), your interpretation may well differ. This is often why there are so many lawsuits and legal loopholes, as the spirit of the law and the letter of the law often differ. I think even in that case, the legal precedent is often to respect the spirit of the law as intended. That's why dialogue is important as it offers an opportunity to elaborate and clarify the communication. It's part of the reason why comments can be so valuable to any posting.

It pays to remember that sometimes the conflicts that happen are not intended - merely by a misunderstanding in communication. But to wage war would be an unproductive effort for both sides.

colporteur  wrote:

Unfortunately my teeth are long in technology careers and find the suggestion demeaning and requires me to feel contrite.

[...]

I respect your commentary but remain with a dissenting opinion. 

Very much in the same vein, I completely understand your feelings and respect your opinion, as this was one that I myself have had in the past. Sometimes, to be contradicted so directly could be considered a wound to your pride. I know if it was directed to myself rather than someone else, I might have had that immediate reaction on the first read. Often, I will sit on things for a while, as the first knee-jerk reaction may not always be the right one. But I found that it was ultimately unproductive in terms of my own sanity and health, and put up a barrier between myself and the other party involved, so I often acquiesce and compromise. I have been accused of being a push-over ... so I guess that's just part of my character.

As an academic researcher, I've come to realise how insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things. I can only do my best effort - but from there, what is taken and what is "left behind" is not up to my choosing. But then again, it's not my prerogative to influence - merely provide my opinion, whatever it is worth. At the end of the day, perhaps even this response might not be useful to anyone ... but I felt that I would be remiss if I didn't at least take the opportunity to explain the philosophy behind my benevolent character is for my own benefit as well. Life has enough worries already ... no need to add more.

- Gough