And how fast have many (most?) of the fixes been turned around? Or responses to them? Let's try to keep this in perspective as well.
Rick--I mean to cause no offense; just to offer honest feedback. A few fixes are being turned around with delay (as in this thread), but you are right that many have been turned around quickly, or have been promised to soon. The responsiveness of the Accordance team is unsurpassed in this regard. I appreciate it.
What about adding a couple more layers or more time to the final proofing/spot-checking process to further mitigate the need for ongoing user reports?
Most of the issues I've encountered recently across multiple modules (including the one on this thread) have been ones I've found within about 5 or 10 minutes of opening a module for the first time... they weren't insignificant.
I think the larger issue for me is wanting to suggest and request--in the spirit of "constructive criticism for how the program could be improved"--that modules receive further proofing/testing before coming to a 1.0 release, so as to prevent the need for at least some of the reports, fix requests, etc.
When I try to keep it in perspective, my recent experience has not been consistent with Helen's recent post about excelling in module quality, at least not in the across-the-board way that I have been used to. Some of those software companies who make "loud noises" actually have some high-quality modules with very clean texts right off the bat, even in their 1.0 releases.
If this is off-topic enough to be moved to another thread, fine, but I didn't want to start a new thread about this--just to register the suggestion. I hope you all will receive it in its intended spirit of being honest, constructive, and trying to help to improve the program.
Thanks for the consideration.