Morgaine Dinova

Yoz, you wrote that you wish to reduce QA costs. As a developer, I wish to increase viewer reliability through automated regression testing, and that would reduce your QA costs at the same time. By far the best way to automate viewer regression testing is to ride on the back of a project aimed at delivering a viewer extensions / plugins system, because that would kill several birds with one stone: Reduce viewer complexity by refactoring much of the slower code into client-side scripts; Reduce UI complexity by loading only those plugins needed for UI features at any given time; Raise reliabi

Q: I'm not going to add to the comments above about the relationship with people who are trying to give you feedback. The many, very well-written posts have expressed the situation perfectly. I will however comment on the technical matter of UI options, because I believe that you are almost entirely wrong about this. The issue splits into two parts, presentation and implementation. PRESENTATION For a user, options only introduce complexity and confusion if they are presented randomly or illogically, and without any means of self-help. Even a small number of options can be badly