Rev Review

[Richard Gaskin]

Rob Cozens wrote:

>> Andy Ihnatko's review is generally positive in a post-Hypercard way
>> although I personally disagree with his closing comment: "Just don't
>> imagine that you'll be able to build the ambitious programs you can
>> turn out in RealBasic and Xcode".
> 
> If Andy's statement began a paragraph followed by reasoning that
> substantiated (or at least explained) his assertion, I could
> understand the basis for that comment and respond accordingly.  As an
> unsubstantiated closing statement of opinion, it's BS....not to
> mention so untrue as to show Andy's total lack of understanding of
> the capabilities of Revolution.

If Andy were writing a white paper I'd agree wholeheartedly, but in all
fairness to the tough job of reviewing software for print magazines I would
venture to guess there is neither the time to do thorough analysis and
benchmarking, nor the space to print results if there were.

FWIW, the average per-word rate magazines pay has increased on 25% over the
last 30 years.  It's a hard job.

A vendor can make that job easier by aniticipating perceptions and
addressing them proactively with a strong reviewer's guide.

Whenever I get a review, I take _all_ noted "cons" to heart as my
responsibilty:

- Those things that are objective weaknesses in the software
  (nothing is perfect, everything can be improved) need my
  attention in developing the next version.

- Those things that are merely misperceptions need my attention
  in crafting a better reviewer's guide to concisely present
  the software's true strengths.

There are probably a few reviewers who are merely lazy malcontents who won't
be happy with anything you do.  But most are merely overworked, underpaid,
and generally in earnest about their job, and I would assert that Andy is
one of the better ones.

The role of criticism in any medium is valuable to the craft:  a reviewr
lives in a noisy world with too much information flooding in and no time to
thoroughly analyze everything.  In this respect they are very much like
potential customers, and when they gripe it gives those of us too close to
the work a valuable insight into how to hone our message so it's a better
representation of what the work really delivers.  It's sort of like
usability testing for one's marketing.

A good reviewer's guide can really help make a reviewer's job much easier,
and they'll appreciate the effort.  Writing for print publications really is
a very hard job.

My favorite example is Adobe GoLive:  there is a common mispercetion that
GoLiive's JavaScript code is somehow bloated, yet a more reasoned analysis
of their architecture demonstrates that while aspects of it may be uncommon
it's at least on par with its competition, and in some cases does better
error-checking in the same or fewer lines.  But most GoLive fans (and a few
Adobe folks it seems) complain about this meme without making the effort to
correct it.  To Adobe's credit they did publish a white paper on the
subject, but without an accompanying press release and the paper is buried
in their site.  The strength of their JavaScript architecture has not found
its way into their key bullet points, and I don't think the white paper is
included in the reviewer's guide.

We have no control over other people, but we can always take more refined
control of the message we deliver.  Don't shoot the messenger, any more than
you would shoot your usability testers when a pet feature scores low. :)


> I believe that, should the RunRev community wish to challenge Andy's
> statements and engage him in a dialog, we could easily demonstrate he
> is wrong.  However, I'm not going to push it: I've got too many irons
> in the fire to assume the quixotic task of educating a software
> reviewer for a hobbyist magazine.

Wise.

I don't think it's worth debating with him per se, as such contention would
not likely yield the result we're looking for.

Perhaps the best way to make the case for Rev is not with words but with
actions:

- Developers: Deliver world-class apps and market the heck out of 'em
              (I can't say enough good things about Jay Conrad Levinson's
              'Guerilla Marketing' books)

              Anyone can release a product but releasing a great product
              takes time, sweat and commitment, and marketing it effectively
              even more so.  But it can be done, and with Rev it can be
              done more cost-effectively than with any other tool.


- RunRev:     Enhance the Gallery to include screen shots, and maybe add a
              Case Studies section to describe the unique contribtions Rev
              made to the development of exceptional software with far-
              below-indistry-average costs.


-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site
 ___________________________________________________________
 Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com