Title: Members' Experiences

Can I remind readers that the purpose of this column is for you to share your experiences (usually of development software) with your fellow members. Modern applications are generally too extensive to review in the traditional fashion. In addition, experience with a piece of software may illustrate things to consider when writing applications. It is in the light of that last element that I am including a (very) brief summary of my experiences when using (and observing professionals using) Quark Express.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the product it is one of the two main DTP packages used by professionals in preparing text for printing (such as for C Vu and Overload). It is a very expensive (over £900) product that can maintain that price because of the degree to which it has its customers locked in. The typical user of QE is working to tight deadlines which prohibit taking time out to learn how to use a new product. In addition different users use distinctly different features to achieve similar objectives. This means that even in a single company, adoption of an alternative package would require individual training for all their QE users.

In simple terms, once you have achieved this level of market penetration you have little reason to fear competition even if the competitive product were far superior.

It also means that a major change to the interface would not be welcome to the users (and would open the door to consideration of alternatives). The kind of continual change of interface that many of us endure from the likes of Microsoft simply will not cut it in this market. However, that does not preclude incremental improvement and with sensible marketing that would result in an ongoing revenue stream. OK, enough background.

One task that a production editor has to do is to ensure that material fits neatly in the available space. Irregular column ends are not acceptable, articles that spill over to a few lines on a new page have to be adapted to avoid that. There are many techniques that a skilled production editor uses to meet these objectives. Such things as a modicum of hyphenation or fractional changes in the kerning are used to recover a line from a paragraph. Increasing the kerning can be used to push a slightly short column to the desired end. Even in the hands of a skilled editor these techniques are largely a matter of try it and see. If it does not work you have to undo and try something else.

So how is it that Quark Express does not support a multilevel undo? Introducing it would have no impact on those that did not use it.

On the other hand it would benefit those that did by saving the odd minute here and there. I can only speculate as to why QE has this weakness (one of quite a number). Unless you have used a multilevel undo you might not appreciate its value, indeed you might not even realise that such a tool existed in other products.

Think carefully about what this teaches us about all aspects of commercial product development. Users hate large-scale overhauls of interfaces. However, they appreciate enhancements that do not interfere with the basic interface. Keeping a customer base means providing stability, keeping a revenue flow means adding enhancements, winning over your rival's customers does not mean providing them with something completely revolutionary. The true costs of change (upgrade, cross-grade or whatever) to a professional is the time it takes to learn the new interface. That is true even if the product is entirely bug free.

Although this is not directly relevant to C programming, I am sharing it because many readers are interested in having their own web pages, possibly with their own domain names for business reasons. Besides looking "professional", a domain name has the advantage that you can point it at any ISP or web host, and therefore survive ISP shutdowns and so forth without having the inconvenience of changing your URL.

A friend of mine wanted a top-level .net domain name, and I offered to help organise it in return for sharing the space. Top-level domains (.com, .net and .org) are controlled by the InterNIC (www.internic.net) and registered by any ICANN-accredited registrar. Until recently, the only such registrar was Network Solutions Inc, and all resellers had to go through them, which meant that these domains did not come cheap. However, there are now a number of competing ICANN-accredited registrars, the details of which are on InterNIC's website.

The only ICANN-accredited registrar within the UK was EasySpace (www.easyspace.com), and I chose this because its being in the UK meant I would not have to worry about currency conversion. Domain registration was £15 a year. I opted for the "registration only" option, thinking I could then point the domain to any ISP of my choice, and I made an online purchase. Sure enough, www.landocel.net became a valid web page within 24 hours, but then the trouble started.

Going to the URL took me to an EasySpace advertisement, saying that I should upgrade from registration only to full web hosting, for lots of extra money. And there was no way of re-directing that domain name to any other server. What is more, the "whois" database said that the domain was owned entirely by EasySpace, despite their promise that I would become the legal owner of the domain name. I had just paid them to register a domain name for themselves, point it at their advertisement, and give me no control over it whatsoever.

I contacted EasySpace support by email, and they wrote me a vague reply, saying that they could re-direct the domain name for an administration charge of £25 (!), but even then they implied that they can only point it at another EasySpace account. I tried to telephone EasySpace but they have no phone number, either on their web page or via directory enquiries. So I wrote them a slightly stronger email, cc-ing it to ICANN registrations. Meanwhile, my friend is somewhat annoyed that I have lost her beloved landocel, which has been her artist's pen-name for some 20 years.

This is how things stand as I write this just before the copy date. I will write the conclusion next time. Meanwhile, be careful with domain name registration, and don't touch EasySpace with a barge pole.

(Editor's note: I wonder if Trading Standards should be contacted on this one)