Lynne

(This thread rocks! :thumbup: )

Hi Lynne,

A few points:

1 The Vision example VI's are in my opinion the worst in terms of LabVIEW style. They are littered with sequence structures willy-nilly, and no error-chaining in every example. They look like they were done by a summer intern with about half an hour of LabVIEW "training".

I have had LabVIEW newbies look at those examples and start coding using sequence structures.

2 Help on specific properties should show which platform they are NOT applicable on; i.e. LabVIEW-RT or PDA etc.

3 Is there need to define the Error Cluster on the Help info for EVERY single VI and function? Maybe a link to a separate blurb on the error cluster would save space and make help info more readable for the actual VI or function.

Thanks,

Neville.

Hey Neville,

Great feedback. These are all things I can report directly on, which is excellent. I've routed your thoughts to the appropriate parties.

Thanks!

Done!

One further comment, I gave high scores to both the small and poster sized versions of a new QRC. What I meant was that I'd like to see it split into two cards. A pocket ref and a poster for the wall above a desk.

Last comment, it continually surprises me that in the job/dept/etc categories that there is no choices for consultants. I suppose System Intgration is applicable, but ...

Anyway, good job on the doc's. NI doc's and support are well above the industry norm. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the feedback and the kind words, Mike!

I'm really glad you clarified your thoughts on the poster vs. pocket size QRC, too. That really helps me to understand exactly what you're talking about. Do you have any thoughts about what sort of stuff you'd like to see on a poster or on a pocket card? I'm curious as to what would be most useful if we were to split the QRC up like that.

As for the consultant category...I will definitely pass that along. You have a really good point.

The older example VIs.

Phew! Got it. I will definitely send that feedback to the appropriate parties.

Lynne

Hi all,

I've created a short survey about the Quick Reference Card that ships with LabVIEW and I would be greatly appreciative if you'd swing by http://research.ni.com/run/2006QRCSurvey to let me know your thoughts. The LabVIEW technical writers are trying to make the Quick Reference Card as usable as possible, and we're looking for your feedback on what would make it better.

For those of you that took the previous LabVIEW documentation survey, this is a new survey format that I think you'll find cleaner, quicker, and more intuitive. Please take a moment and let us know what you think!

Thanks again,

Lynne Sypula

Technical Writer

LabVIEW Core Documentation

Good point - the procedural topics are very good, it's the older examples that are found wanting.

So, it's the older procedural topics that you feel could use some revisiting? Or the older example VIs?

I think the number of examples is fine, it's just the quality of them is sometimes found lacking. That said, the quality has improved dramatically over the last couple of years, so maybe the people that wrote the more recent example could spend some time revisiting all of the older ones too?

Just for clarification, are you talking about the example VIs that ship with LabVIEW, or are you talking about the procedural topics in the LabVIEW Help (where there are steps that outline how to accomplish a task)? I want to make sure I understand what you're talking about.

Lynne

That's what we're here for Any chance on seeing the results of the survey so we could maybe flesh the comments out a little?

Good morning from Austin! We had a lot of really good feedback including some actionable comments we're already working on.

Overall, three major issues were repeated: 1) More detail in our help, 2) more examples, and 3) using the search feature is often difficult. We are always looking for feedback, so if any of these resonates with anyone out there, please let us know! We are constantly working to make the LabVIEW Help better.

Lynne

p.s. This is common sense stuff, really, but the more specific you can be with your comments, the better. If you increase your level of specificity, we can decrease our level of inference. And that's a good thing.

Hey everyone.

I wanted to say "thanks" for all your participation and feedback on our survey and to let you know that we have closed the survey. We collected a great deal of data and we are so thankful to those who took the time to swing by SurveyMonkey (or SlothMonkey, as was suggested on the NI forums) to answer our questions.

Please feel free to send us feedback about the LabVIEW Help at any time. The feedback link at the bottom of all our help topics is a great way to send us your comments, and it comes directly to us.

Lynne, Kate, and Chris

Technical Writers

LabVIEW Core Documentation

The LabVIEW documentation team has designed a survey to give us a better understanding of how users interact with the LabVIEW Help system. Customer feedback is very important to us! Please take a few moments to answer the survey questions linked below. Your answers will help us improve the quality of the LabVIEW documentation and will contribute to a better LabVIEW product.

Please note that your answers will be kept confidential and will only be used internally at National Instruments.

Click the following link to access the survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=421912598491

Thank you for your participation,

Lynne Sypula, Kate Gunter, and Chris MacLeod

LabVIEW Core Technical Writers