Draft 2015 RISC OS awards page

Don’t forget – Ovation (original) now runs on a Pi and now is free. ;-)

Despite the Titanium boards being in stock since July (albeit subject to a NDA until mid October) and fully tested since mid October. Now still awaiting ADFS licensing issues to be resolved.

I didn’t realise that was the situation – but good point.

The other thing I forgot to mention that made Titanium more appropriate than the Pi Zero (since Jon specifically raised the point of one against the other) is that I strongly suspect more RISC OS users who will be aware of/likely to vote in this poll have seen the Titanium running RISC OS (via the London Show) than have seen the Pi Zero.

However, it doesn’t really matter now, since I’m going to make some changes as described above.

Michael: When it was last released doesn’t really matter, as long as it’s still generally available – all a more recent release would mean is that it’s more likely to have been mentioned on RISCOSitory, so it’s more likely to be on my RADAR.

Rick: I thought I had included the old Ovation – I meant to! Oops. I’ll see what things look like when I’m juggling things this evening.

As an aside, although I don’t want to introduce categories for each different type of software, I’m wondering if there ought to be one for ‘Best development tool or resource’ (or something along those lines). Not just (say) GCC or the DDE; it could include things like the new Style Guide. (Hence ‘or resource’).

Heh.

A couple of observations – while supping my coffee I’ve read the thread discussing the previous two polls I’ve done.

Firstly, it seems in the first year, at that point I hadn’t read that fewer options is better, but suspected it (because it strikes me as common sense). I have read that general advice since, though.

Secondly (or firstly pt2), that year I’d opted for a maximum of five. My memory said six, which is why I set that limit this year. Oh well, six it is.

Thirdly (or secondly), Rick: Last year, when I made it text entry only, you suggested I do what I’ve done this year! (Which was what I originally intended)

Fourthly (thirdly), following a comment by Jeffrey I was going to modify the approach for the survey (allowing multiple selections). I forgot about that – but I don’t want to rewrite the form or php now, so it’ll have to stay as it is. Next year, maybe – if I don’t forget (again).

Six is a very arbitrary limit. Where a category has more than six worthy entrants, I would support making all the choices available rather than imposing an arbitrary and unrealistic limit.

Yes, it is an arbitrary limit, but the point is there should be a limit, and that is the limit I have chosen.

If I open end it, and accept suggestions, the six in whatever category will become seven (because one more won’t make the list too long), then eight (well, if seven isn’t too long, eight isn’t) then nine (surely one more is okay?) and so on, as everyone and his dog suggests their own pet favourite.

Then those looking at it will be spoilt for choice, and you risk people just clicking any old thing to move on to the next question (or thinking I’ll leave it as ‘no opinion’ for now and come back to this one – then forgetting).

The point of a limit is to try to avoid that.

Not forgetting that the reason for the hybrid options/text field approach is precisely because people might want to vote for something other than what I’ve suggested. (And that’s why I said in the very first post in this thread that I’ll try to look at such votes and mention them on RISCOSitory, to provide additional ideas for people who have yet to vote.)

Stupid piece of #### forum kicked me out having just signed in to write this. Grrrr!!!!!

Rick: I thought I had included the old Ovation – I meant to! Oops.

Thanks.

I’m wondering if there ought to be one for ‘Best new development tool or resource’ (or something along those lines). Not just (say) GCC or the DDE; it could include things like the new Style Guide. (Hence ‘or resource’).

There. FTFY.

The best development tool or resource is either the DDE or GCC, depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

By adding the word “new”, we can gloss over the Editor Wars Syndrome and concentrate on new stuff. The updated Style Guide. GCC now supporting shared libraries. RiscLua using said libraries (and requiring a load of baggage for it now :-( ). Etc.

Thirdly (or secondly), Rick: Last year, when I made it text entry only, you suggested I do what I’ve done this year! (Which was what I originally intended)

The point is surely to make your administration simpler?

Look – if a question only has a few options, like “Best USB plug”, then list a few options. If a question demands more options, then list them. All of them.
Because to (arbitrarily?) knock out viable options in order to appease a theoretical limit risks denigrating something or somebody.
If you should come across a question that has a dozen odd potential options, then the answer is not to omit options, the answer is to revisit the question. For instance “Preferred machine for using RISC OS” (could validly count everything from the A305 onwards) vs “Preferred machine for using RISC OS 5”.

and so on, as everyone and his dog suggests their own pet favourite.

If everybody and their kitten has a valid suggestion, it implies the question is imprecise.

and you risk people just clicking any old thing to move on to the next question

And you risk skewing the results by omitting potential options because we both know that people are going to be too damn lazy to reach for the keyboard…

Plus – it surely makes things easier for you? If the primary valid choices are ticky-list options, then these can be counted automagically, no need for intervention.

By adding the word “new”, we can gloss over the Editor Wars Syndrome

and the newest editor is? Fred will be on your case if you say the (wrong)right word :)

The best online resource category is a bit weak. The StarDot forum should be on there as it’s probably the most active Acorn site on the web.

And I know you’re being modest but how can RISCOSitory itself not be mentioned! It’s the only regularly(ish) updated RISC OS news site.

To keep it to 6 options, I’d say drop the two mailing lists.

and the newest editor is?

Both work on RISC OS 5. ;-)

Perhaps the newest editor is Ovation, but it doesn’t do syntax highlighting, meh… <gd&r>

and the newest editor is?

RegGraph of course :)
http://www.tellima.nl/riscos/

The best online resource category is a bit weak. The StarDot forum should be on there as it’s probably the most active Acorn site on the web.

Isn’t STH more about 8-bit Acorn systems, though? I don’t read it, but that’s pretty much how I’ve always seen it. Happy to be corrected, though.

And I know you’re being modest but how can RISCOSitory itself not be mentioned!

Less modesty, and more about whether it’s appropriate, since I’m the one doing it.

Edit: Though I should point out I have put RISCOSitory in this year ;)

GCC now supporting shared libraries. RiscLua using said libraries (and requiring a load of baggage for it now :-( ).

Yes, I rather regret the baggage. The whole exercise of trying to get to grips with GCC has made me come to realize that I have been serving up RiscLua the wrong way. The philosophy behind Lua has been to keep it minimal, with users picking and choosing the libraries they need for their particular application; in other words, a self-service snacketeria not a set-menu restaurant. That is all very well in the Unix world, but did not fit RISC OS. The only C compilers we currently have are either Norcroft ( compact but no vfp, tied to AIF – so no dynamic linking ) or GCC ( with a load of baggage ). ELF files have to be bigger, of course. For years I went with Norcroft, and offered one all-inclusive dish, though of course I could have offered a menu to the discerning diner :). There are very few diners anyway, and those that might have wanted a choice of menu could probably cook at home. So I see the use of GCC more as a pointer to the way things could go in the future than as much of an improvement for current RiscLua users. But thanks for the comment.

I had a bit of a scare with GCC. With the considerable help of Lee Noar and others I got it to compile Lua 5.3.1 to make RiscLua 6.00. Soon afterwards Lua 5.3.2 came out – a bugfix revision. But I just could not get GCC to compile it; it kept treating my sourcecode as C++, without any reason that I could fathom. I began to think that I had backed the whole project into a corner. Then Lee finished an email with a passing remark about make . The problem turned out to be neither me nor GCC but a faulty copy of make that I was using for compilation. So my angst has lifted – until the next setback. It has always amazed me that digital technology works at all. Software is built as if with a pack of cards – rickety and at the mercy of a sneeze. Well, that is just how I feel. Happy Xmas.

Apologies in advance for the length of this, folks. It gets a bit ranty in places, but what needs to be said needs to be said.

(Aside, WTF isn’t there a ‘preview’ button so I can proof-read it as it will appear on the forum? Reading it again in the text field really isn’t the same!)

‘Best [new] development tool or resource’

By adding the word “new”, we can gloss over the Editor Wars Syndrome and concentrate on new stuff.

I don’t see how the word new changes anything. Any new release of GCC is new, just as any new release of DDE is new, so the potential for Editor Wars Syndrome is still there…

The updated Style Guide. GCC now supporting shared libraries. RiscLua using said libraries (and requiring a load of baggage for it now :-( ). Etc.

…or – since your examples didn’t mentioned it – are you denigrating DDE by suggesting it isn’t included? What were you saying later in your post about not excluding things?

The point is surely to make your administration simpler?

And I’ve already explained how my approach is simple – but in more detail:

Each option gets a letter: A-F for the (up to six) options, and Z for “no opinion” (and now the addition of “X” for the alternative option, along with the text box itself).

I said before that my code deals with the counting, but I forgot the full sequence – two years since I last did it with options, after all. My code just turns the raw data into a CSV file (well, a little more than that, but that’s the important bit). That file is then loaded into Fireworkz, which does the business.

Each question ends up in a column. Each vote a row. At the bottom of the sheet, a row for each possible answer uses a simple formula to say how many entries in that column are A, how many are B, how many are C, and so on – calculating the percentages that aren’t “no opinion”. Below that, another formula tells me which option has the highest count. (Just makes it even more of a glance where two percentages are very close: This line is the winning option).

So, for a purely ‘tick your choice’ approach, counting is a very simple matter of collating the votes into a CSV file (run the program, and a moment later it’s done), load that file into Fireworkz (a double click on the file, and a moment later that’s done), add in the formulae and hey presto: The counting is done. It takes very little real time.

And note: Last time I was using a Pi; this time I’ll be running the program and Fireworkz on an ARMX6 – it’ll take even less time this year. (Just loading Fireworkz, for example, is much faster on ARMX6 than Pi – and IIRC, that’s one of the slowest parts of the whole thing!)

I could, of course, do it all in code, but why bother when the existing tools work? It would probably be several years before the time saved each time balances out the time spent writing the relatively simple program (and ensuring there are no bugs).

But comparing the speed of the two machines slightly off topic, so back to the plot…

The hybrid approach I’ve opted for this year needs a slight modification – there will be two columns now for each question, with the content of the text field in the second. But I only need to look at the second column if the total of X responses is higher than the total of any of the A-F responses.

If (say) the results for a question are that C has the highest total at 24%, while X scores 23%, I don’t need to do anything more: C has won.

The admin is not difficult using this method, except in those cases where the alternative option achieves the highest percentage – such as if the two example percentages above are swapped. Then, and only then do I need to parse those entries to tally them up and establish if anything in that column has won.

So, if anything (reading the rest of your post), what you are proposing would make the admin harder!

Why?

First of all, consider that I first decided to do this over two years ago. The first time you ever heard about this, I had already given a lot of thought to it. I didn’t just come up with the idea the day before you saw the first mention of it and make the site live overnight, announcing it to the world the next day.

Now with that in mind, ask yourself whether I’ve already considered breaking broad categories down into something more granular, and if I might have decided against it for whatever reason.

Hint: I did, and I did.

Just look at the first couple of categories (the change from ‘product’ to ‘software’ aside – the principle remains). Despite our small market, there are a surprising number of commercial products (or even just commercial software) available, so by your reckoning, I need to sit down and categorise that, then work out what software goes into what category. And – because nothing must be excluded – I have to spend ages trawling the internet finding all of them.

Then I have to do that again, for non-commercial software – and there’s even more of that.

All of a sudden, my task – rather than being ‘simpler’ – is a lot harder, and a lot more time consuming.

Now, second of all, consider that I’m getting eff all out of this. Time really is money when you charge by the hour – so it’s all cost to me; the more time I spend on it, the more it’s costing me; every hour spent on this is an hour I’m not earning an income. (And that’s on top of money actually being paid out for hosting fees etc.)

Of course, if you are that adamant that it has to be done the way you want it done, there is the option of you sponsoring it, by paying for my time at my normal charge out rate. If so, I’ll be more than happy to work on this exclusively for as long as it takes to ensure every piece of software, free or commercial, every piece of hardware, every website, etc, is all included in at least one category, with no categories having too many options to choose from.

Although, then there will be too many questions – another thing that often puts people off! So…

Because to (arbitrarily?) knock out viable options in order to appease a theoretical limit risks denigrating something or somebody.

Casts off the feeling of deja vu of moans I received in emails after the first however many RISCOSitory show reports. Did the other sites, like Drobe and Iconbar, get that? What about the magazines before them? Because my memory says they didn’t mention every exhibitor, which I now try to do!

…you have to have limits. Not too many questions – and not too many options for those questions.

Which means not everything can get a mention.

If you should come across a question that has a dozen odd potential options, then the answer is not to omit options, the answer is to revisit the question.

Yes… either split it into further categories (even more work) or narrow it down to exclude some things. But then, since we’re trying to avoid denigrating someone’s effort (irony, irony, they’ve all got it irony – or something!), then narrowing it down to exclude things isn’t an option – it has to be the additional work of more categories (and the risk of putting people off voting).

When I initially read your post yesterday, I was thinking of just killing off the awards site (after a mere two years) because it isn’t worth the hassle. However, having thought about it some more, in the hope of appeasing some of the objections, what I could do is this:

As well as the voting form, I can add a nominations page, which would pretty much be based on the text-voting form from last year. That’ll remain live throughout the year (and if it works, subsequent years – perhaps updated with deadlines for nominations to count each year). People can use it any time for nominating stuff for the next awards. When the time comes to set those up, the (arbitrarily limited to six) options in each category will be based on those nominations; the six items in each category that received the most nominations.

Note that if I do this, I probably won’t bother opening up the vote for discussion before making it live, and I also won’t bother with the alternative option. It’ll be clicky only.

That might amount to more work for me, but it might balance out compared to what I’ve done this year and the year before last.

Doesn’t solve the problem of this year, though. Perhaps you could compile your list of categories and nominations? I can absolutely guarantee you that I won’t point out all of the flaws – because there will be too many. I only need to highlight enough to drive the point home.

I was thinking of just killing off the awards site because it isn’t worth the hassle

Nooooo! Don’t do that, it’s a good way to celebrate the things that have been achieved in the past year and give those involved a pat on the back. Another reason to include RISCOSitory in the best website options :-)

Also try to remember that although they may seem to be moaning, everyone on here is only trying to help and make it better.

FWIW IMHO etc, six options is plenty when there is a free text field too, and don’t bother having nominations page up all year because no one will remember to use it.

Forgot to say, the way you’ve redone the questions overnight is good. The spread of categories/products seems much better balanced.

Nooooo! Don’t do that,

Don’t panic. That was just my initial reaction to reading Rick’s post. It only lasted until I failed to sleep on it, during which time I gave it some more thought, leading to the nomination form idea.

(During which time I also devised a solution to a programming problem I had in another context – two, in fact – so it’s all good. And came up with a nifty little game idea – which I’ve quite probably already seen somewhere and has been lurking at the back of my head since. And I’ll probably never find the time to write it anyway.)

Another reason to include RISCOSitory in the best website options :-)

Not going to happen. But I think that category does only have five (checks, yes, it does) – so back to Stardot: Is my assumption about the forum having too few bits correct, or is RISC OS on topic there?

Also try to remember that although they may seem to be moaning, everyone on here is only trying to help and make it better.

I get that – and (in terms of the options that I initially put together) that’s why I opened the discussion here: because if it’s just left to one fallible human, worthy things will be omitted. With Drobe and Iconbar, they didn’t/don’t just have one person behind the scenes, so I expect there was discussion each year those sites did it. It’s just me, so I opened the floor here.

But there’s a difference between “How about this for such and such a category, should that be there? Wouldn’t the other be better moved here…” and “You’re doing it wrong.”

Rick’s post very much came across to me – and still does – as the latter.

I hate armchair experts. (Conveniently ignoring the fact that I am one now and again…)

and don’t bother having nominations page up all year because no one will remember to use it.

Possibly, but it’s worth doing as an experiment. Don’t forget that I can plaster reminders in a number of places – a banner on RISCOSitory etc, some standard text at the bottom of each page suggesting people nominate whatever the post is about if they think it’s worthy, a line or two in the sig file of all the RISCOSitory mailing lists. (Even if only two or three of them are actually used…)

Rethinking the format, though – rather than last years form, a simpler one with just a category selector and a text field.

(And some decent code behind it to ensure nobody can play silly beggars. I’m looking at one – albeit very amusing – voter from last year!)

My post was not intended to tell you you’re doing anything wrong, it was intended to highlight potential suggestions for improvement. Note the italics, like most of the other $#!+ on the Internet, it can be ignored. At the end of the day when all is said and done (etc), it’s your voting setup and ultimately your call.

Having said that:

Rethinking the format, though

That’s the best that I could ask. Even if you disagree with me, it doesn’t matter, all of us have ideas and you get to distil this down to ideas that are useful and ideas that are crappy…

I apologise if I gave you the impression that I was being rude to you. That is not my intention at all. I write in a fairly direct manner as I don’t believe in beating around the bush when a point can be made more simply. A bit like you reply – straight direct and to the point. ;-)

Don’t worry about it. It’s been a pretty crummy week anyway, so I’m a little wound up at the moment.

And changing the subject back to the form: I’ve just done some quick browsing of Stardot. There seem to be a fair few threads with a RISC OS flavour, so I’ll add that to the online resource category.

Any other suggestions/corrections, etc?

(Aside: I’m aware that one of the new survey questions lacks line breaks – no need to point that out!)

I probably won’t make any more changes until the weekend – so that change won’t be reflected until then. Tomorrow I anticipate being busy, and Friday – if possible, which it currently is – I’m going to head off into the wilderness for the day for some peace, quiet, and possibly a debate with some sheep about which brand of mint sauce is the best.

I’m going to head off into the wilderness for the day for some peace, quiet,

Good idea. Some personal time is always a good thing in a stressful world.

and possibly a debate with some sheep about which brand of mint sauce is the best.

I believe that if a piece of meat is sufficiently decent, it can carry the meal on its own merits and doesn’t need sauces.

For comparison – the other end of the scale is for the so-called “meat” to be smothered in strong flavoured sauce, coated in polystyrene “cheese”, stuffed in between two halves of a bun, and served with cold limp chips and a sugar-water mixture purporting to be something vaguely related to coca cola (related as in wet, sweet, and brown).

Oh, and I’ve just discovered the joy of a slow cooker. I got a personal-sized one from a boot sale (never used!) and am pleased to report that sliced carrot, diced onion, some mid-range beef cut into lumps, plus a stock cube as I can’t be bothered messing around fetching herbs from the garden – it sits on my desk while I’m writing/watching stuff and cooks in about eight hours. A nice flavourful meal at the end of it. It’s dead easy to do as well. Chop everything. Throw it in (meat on top). Add water. Plug in. Leave, for hours and hours. Done. ;-)

I’m going to head off into the wilderness for the day for some peace, quiet, and possibly a debate with some sheep about which brand of mint sauce is the best.

Ah, sheep worrying level 1 = looking over the gate and saying “mint sauce”
A friend demonstrated level 2 (or higher) a few years ago when he leaned on the gate stared at the nearest sheep and said “hello darlin’, doing anything tonight?”
Now that may not have worried the sheep that much, but it worried us.

Only just had a look, normally having so many questions to answer would put me off.
However, they are very interesting questions. One’s I would be very interested to know the polling results from.
Very well constructed questions!
Now I know this is very naughty, but the thought made me laugh (and that’s the way it’s intended, given the likely forum audience)… could you alter the RISC OS 6.0 to be RISC OS 6.0/Arthur.

Steve: Not to worry. I gather sheep only understand propositions in Welsh, so you should only worry if he asked: “Helo, darlin’, Gwneud unrhyw beth heno?” (Cheers, Google.)

Malcolm: Hehe ;)

On the number of questions, yes, seeing them all – both poll and survey – on a single page like that does make it look a bit long. In terms of time, it doesn’t really take very long at all, I think it’s just the format making it look worse than it is.

Perhaps it’s time to make another possible change I mentioned last year or the year before – changing it so each question is on a single page (with larger text).

An advantage with doing that (and the reason I said I want to do it) is that it can remove some confusion from the survey part, by automatically skipping over questions when needed. I forget which year it was, but I remember seeing at least one entry where someone said they didn’t use another OS, then said they used it more than RISC OS (or something like that).

While finalising the entries, I’ll leave it as is; I’ll make that change when I make it live.

Missed a few days of this thread, I should probably have stated in my last post that I thought both the Titanium and Pi Zero should probably wait for next years poll.

I’ve just looked at the revised one, looks good to me, quite comprehensive with relevant free text fields where appropriate. I feel your frustration and doff my hat to you Vince for sticking with it.

Friday – if possible, which it currently is – I’m going to head off into the wilderness for the day

Ho hum. My golden rule is never to turn down work – so I’m off to sort out someone’s b0rked Sage data instead.