BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Michael P. Edison" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
BP - "Infarct a Laptop Daily"
Date:
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:41:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Message text written by "BP - \"Infarct a Laptop Daily\""
>
In my experience you cannot easily do field tests by asking the individual
reps to meet at the site at the same time, the same day, under the same
weather conditions and do mock-ups on the same wall next to each other.
There
is either too much rancor in the air, or too much pulling over to the side
for a little talk. I say this having years ago done it with cleaning
mock-ups
and having nothing to do w/ composite patching. If we can get past the
negative attributes that pop up I agree that it would be interesting to see
fair field tests and I would certainly support them. I'm not generally in
favor of fist fights in the field though I have been known to do a few rude
things from time to time. Without objective physical criteria materials
will
be selected for emotional reasons. I think we need to keep the emotional
burden in check long enough to give each other room to be understood.<

I don't have a problem with these observations. But if we are going to
introduce these variations in the test procedure, we have to adjust the
tolerances for what is acceptable accordingly. Otherwise you are trying to
draw conclusions that are rendered invalid by the lack of precision of the
method. The final objective should still be the same, however: To preserve
as many technically feasible choices as possible. That will give you the
room to maneuver around the business issues.

Mike E.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2