Digital QST Survey
| Jun 24th 2012, 01:47 | |
[email protected]Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
Have you tried the new Digital QST and are you pleased with it? |
| Jun 24th 2012, 03:06 | |
aa6eTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
Those survey options don't work for me -- and many others, perhaps. How about "Tried it -- will take some getting used to, has potential (Linux PC user)"? There's a lot of room between "not happy" and "love it"! |
| Jun 25th 2012, 11:05 | |
N0NBTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
The "survey" is flawed in many ways, but even if desktop Linux were properly supported, I still find the current format so inferior to PDF that this "membership feature" is useless to me. I checked it out and will continue to use the paper edition until the print issue is no longer financially feasible--about 10-15 years I would guess. 73, de Nate >> N0NB.us |
| Jul 16th 2012, 17:03 | |
KE6FISTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
Tried it-no joy. I'm with N0NB. Without Linux support--preferably with an open standard publication format such as PDF--it's unusable for me. |
| Jul 17th 2012, 02:32 | |
aa6eTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
Digital QST definitely does work under Linux, if you have Flash. (Ubuntu, for example - probably best in 32 bit mode) You only need Adobe AIR if you want to download an issue for off-line reading. And you might not want to do that even if you had AIR, because each issue takes around 300 MB. |
| Jul 18th 2012, 07:52 | |
PE1HZGTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
Adobe AIR was obsoleted the day digital QST was introduced. If it is difficult to get access to the content now, try in a few years when more platforms are 'obsoleted' by this propietary, single-supplier solution. Please consider plain PDF. Watermark if you must. But leave technical content accessible with technical parameters, i.e. published standards, and long-term support. I'm actually a bit dismayed by all this - when I found out about this problem, I sent mail to [email protected] assuming that mine, or a similar complaint from someone else, would make it. I did get a "thank you for your message" response, but 2 QST issues onwards the cheering messages did make it in the magazine but the complaint did not. Geert Jan |
| Jul 20th 2012, 10:36 | |
KC7CJTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
The new 'Digital QST' is very slick, but not very useful. I think it would have been a lot more useful if it were PDF. For now, I'd rather just wait for my print copy each month. |
| Jul 22nd 2012, 02:02 | |
KB0HAETotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
I do Not consider digital QST to be "slick" at all! It is very cumbersome and difficult to navigate. That added to the fact that Linux is not supported, and it is not readable on a tablet or an e-ink Kindle, and it's not useable at all to me. As it is, digital QST is a waste, a monstrosity, a HUGE mistake!! CORRECT THE MISTAKE!!! Drop the DRM, and make PDF, Kindle, and epub versions available for download! My remaining an ARRL member may just depend on ARRL releasing QST in all of the above formats without any DRM. |
| Jul 24th 2012, 21:30 | |
aa6eTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
So it appears that there are some people (above, including me) who have some criticisms of the Digital QST. Let's keep some perspective, though. Probably a large percentage of readers have no major beef with the digital edition. (They would include Windows and Mac users, also IOS and Android. They must be a big majority of readers.) I haven't seen any scientific polling about general reader satisfaction -- that would be interesting. The world does not revolve around Linux, and it does not revolve around any one person's esthetics. Some of us will give a pass on the current digital QST. So be it. It's not the end of the world, and it does not mean that the League has made a "huge mistake". It's not clear to me what is a "good" file format if you want it to work well across all screen formats. (PDF is not perfect.) It is a good thing to point out all the advantages of maintaining an open format (PDF or otherwise) for QST and other publications. How will we access this material in 5, 10, 15 years? I think the League may come around to that if they get enough well-reasoned arguments. 73 Martin AA6E |
| Jul 26th 2012, 20:53 | |
N0NBTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
I guess my prediction of the print edition still being available 10 to 15 years down the road was rather optimistic as the August issue still hasn't gotten here. I guess I need to contact them about it. Maybe they've read this thread and are forcing me to digital only! ;) 73, de Nate >> N0NB.us |
| Aug 6th 2012, 06:20 | |
KD7SJTTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
I'm using Ubuntu 12.04LTS, with flash installed. I am using WINE and installed the windows 7 version of Adobe Flash, and cannnot get the offline version to work at all. Online version does work, but offline does not. I am not happy. I will continue to use the paper version until ARRL comes up with a better solution. By the way, I use a Toshiba Thrive also, and Downloading isn't even an option with that. I'm dissappointed greatly. Please ARRL, Please come up with a better solution. May I suggest Zinnio? Thanks for hearing me out. |
| Aug 14th 2012, 21:56 | |
WA4TUXTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
Just one question - where is the "Download PDF Copy" button? Please enable that feature and make this discussion OBE... |
| Sep 5th 2012, 14:33 | |
KB0HAETotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
Well, as it has becoming obvious that ARRL is not going to listen to members about Digital QST along with many other issues, I have decided not to renew my membership at this time. While I approve of ARRL's atempting to get PRB1 to apply to the CCR/HOA situation and fighting asgainst interference-generating BPL instalations, I feel that ARRL's other policies such as supporting the use of unattended winlink stations, and not limiting the frequencues used in ARRL sponsored contests so that non-contesters have a chance to operate, and important health and safety nets can be conducted with much less interference from contesters (I could go on with a very long list here! but I won't) are detrimental to Amateur Radio. The use of a non-open DRMed format for Digital QST (when many members asked for PDF and ereradefr friendly formats) was the last straw for me. |
| Sep 6th 2012, 14:04 | |
AG3EKTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
While I can understand why you might feel that the ARRL isn't listening to its members because they don't put the digital QST out in a format that can be freely copied, it seems to me that using that as a factor in choosing whether or not to be a member is a good example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. If they had not produced QST in any kind of digital format would you still be leaving? If not, then you're saying that you're leaving because they made your membership better, but just not better enough, at no additional cost to you. I've toured ARRL HQ. I really don't think they have the staff to do a digital magazine in house. Given a choice between doing it on their own or farming the job out to another company, it really made sense for them to let someone else handle it. Now the question is down to which company and in what format. We have no idea of what all the expenses (both actual cash outlay to the vendor and additional overhead expenses) are or what all the options required in time and effort. If it were me producing a paid subscription magazine (which QST really is) I seriously doubt that I'd just put it out in an unprotected format. And I'm pretty big on things being open and free. Personally, I think the digital QST could be better but I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth. I read mine both ways- in print and online. They each have their advantages. I can't click on a link in the printed edition, but it's easier to read it that way. I say we should all be thankful that the ARRL is doing this for us. If you don't like it, you don't have to read the digital version and you're no worse off than you were before. |
| Sep 6th 2012, 15:35 | |
AI4BJTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
I'm happy with the digital QST. I still prefer reading my print copy, but its nice to know that I don't have to keep storing back-issues any longer. I also enjoy having access to the bonus material. Yes, PDF format would be more convenient for me, but I fully support the league's decision to use a DRM-enabled format. If hams want to read QST badly enough, they should have to join the ARRL, no ifs, ands or buts. |
