2024-01-25, 11:00 AM
Hi Greg. Thanks for the in-depth response. It helps us understand not only your personality better, but the personality of the thing you've created.
Looking at it from a customer-support angle, suppose I'm one of your customers (which now I definitely am, right?). Suppose I've adopted an approach of observing using sets of objects for the time being - because, well, that's my approach to the hobby. I know that's different than the approach you think everybody should use. I respect your orientation and I understand it. But just suppose you're listening to me as a customer, trying to help me figure out how to solve my customer problem - rather than trying to rearrange the way I'm pursuing the hobby. Suppose, as your customer, I'm working my way through a set of objects in a list like the Messier list and I get to M84 and realize that, in my scope, it's in the same field of view as M86. How would you "group" or create a visual link between these two objects... so that everytime I see M84 in my Messier list, I remember that it's *associated* with M86?
And suddenly, I realize that ... every time I go to M81, I should arrange the field of view so that I also look at M82?
And it's crazy ... if my scope has a wide field of view (which mine does) that I don't try to make sure I visually group M31, M32, and M110. Because they just *go* together.
And if I'm careless, I forget that I could look at M7 and M108 in the same field of view as well. They just *go* together.
You get the idea. How do we represent the fact that these objects are naturally grouped? Because me as an observer, there should be a way ... in such a dynamic and capable product as SkyTools, to say, "These objects are part of the same object family -- every time I go there, regardless of which list we're using or which observing goal we have - they will always go together."
How would we do that, Greg?
Looking at it from a customer-support angle, suppose I'm one of your customers (which now I definitely am, right?). Suppose I've adopted an approach of observing using sets of objects for the time being - because, well, that's my approach to the hobby. I know that's different than the approach you think everybody should use. I respect your orientation and I understand it. But just suppose you're listening to me as a customer, trying to help me figure out how to solve my customer problem - rather than trying to rearrange the way I'm pursuing the hobby. Suppose, as your customer, I'm working my way through a set of objects in a list like the Messier list and I get to M84 and realize that, in my scope, it's in the same field of view as M86. How would you "group" or create a visual link between these two objects... so that everytime I see M84 in my Messier list, I remember that it's *associated* with M86?
And suddenly, I realize that ... every time I go to M81, I should arrange the field of view so that I also look at M82?
And it's crazy ... if my scope has a wide field of view (which mine does) that I don't try to make sure I visually group M31, M32, and M110. Because they just *go* together.
And if I'm careless, I forget that I could look at M7 and M108 in the same field of view as well. They just *go* together.
You get the idea. How do we represent the fact that these objects are naturally grouped? Because me as an observer, there should be a way ... in such a dynamic and capable product as SkyTools, to say, "These objects are part of the same object family -- every time I go there, regardless of which list we're using or which observing goal we have - they will always go together."
How would we do that, Greg?