"Joe Subich, W4TV" <li...@subich.com> wrote: > > > Providing an optional means of reinforcing split/non-split state is > > in the tradition of design iteration -- using feedback about real > > errors that people make, then minimizing them. That's why we're > > having this conversation. > > The problem is that you're still trying to reinforce a negative. The > normal operation is simplex - none of the additional indicators will > do anything to reinforce to an operator set for simplex that he > *should be* split.
It is partly a matter of training, and you're right, we can't solve that part of the problem. But we *can* improve the visibility of split/non-split state information, and there's a lot of evidence that even well-trained operators could benefit from that. No one remembers to be in or out of split as required 100% of the time. If we can solve part of the problem in firmware (by improving visibility), why not? At least this thread might then only come up semiannually. Meanwhile, the experts on split, including you, could help correct the other part of the problem by writing educational articles about split operation for ham magazines and web forums. Wayne N6KR ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
