Jens and all,

Jen's response to my initial message raises some interesting issues that I
think are worth commenting on in light of the original question. The topic
of Linux is interesting. I hadn't thought about it. To my mind, one
crucial matter is that these days most users think from a "client-side"
perspective (as in "client-server" computing). A "client-side" prespective
is in many ways the same as a "PC" perspective with the major difference
that a PC is a stand-alone machine that can pretty much do work without
being connected to a network while a "client" is a computing device that the
user uses mostly in conjunction with a network. In particular, whether the
user is working on a stand-alone PC or using a client on a client-server
network, they are most aware of their interactions with the graphical user
interface. This could be the Mac GUI, a Unix-derived GUI like X-Windows, or
most likely for most people - Windows. IMHO, Microsoft has been quite
ingenious in developing lots of tools (like Visual Basic and VBA) that make
it relatively easy to develop client-side applications and provide
knowledgable users with a way to "customize" off the shelf software packages
(provided that the off-the-shelf packages are designed with these
capabilities in mind.)

Linux is interesting because it has been developed as open-source code.
However, from what I have seen, an awful lot of the work on Linux currently
has been explicitly or implicitly - server-oriented. That is, Linux (like
Unix before it) operates as if it is running on a powerful mainframe, mini
or microcomputer and communicating with a bunch of clients that may be
running different sorts of graphical user interfaces including Windows.
There is less of an emphasis in making sure that client-side applications
are relatively easy to develop and customize. As a community, Linux tends
to be a little "hacker-oriented" and presumes that people already have
considerable programming knowledge or (just as likely) can't or don't want
to pay premium prices for proprietary products such as Windows. All this
said, tools like VBA can make the whole process of customizing applications
programs considerably "easier" than it otherwise might be. In essence, it
allows end-users with some capability to design what would essentially be
their own "plug-in" sub programs (much like Netscape or Internet Explorer
provide capabilities for adding "plug-ins to their basic browser programs.)

All this said, learning to use tools like Visual Basic/VBA and customizing
off-the-shelf programs still presupposes some programming ability on the
part of end-users. At the same time, it is reasonably easy (for me anyway)
to think of instances where one might want to customize off the shelf
programs to meet an end-users' particular data processing needs in a variety
of ways.

As I said in my original note, my guess is that the folks developing
qualitative software packages have tended to build in a set of features that
they think will appeal to a broad range of users, upgrade those features
over time in response to user requests, and provide training on how to best
make use of program capabilities. Given the size and the probable
programming abilities of the user community, this probably makes a lot of
sense. In particular, in keeping an eye on developments (and it is not a
constant pursuit on my part), I haven't seen a lot of evidence that
qualitative software programs are "readily" customizable in the way that
Microsoft Office is or that there is demand in the user community for those
sorts of capabilities. My presumption was that I was a little bit of an
oddball in this regard. But I thought that by asking the question on the
list might elicit responses from the programming types who actually design
the packages. I was glad to see Jens' message because it indicated to me
that I was not a party of one and that other users might be interested in
customizable qualitative software packages.

I feel a little strange because I suspect that there are end-users out there
who are scratching their heads trying to figure out what I am talking about
and "hackers" who think that I don't know what I am talking about. I'd
welcome comments from end-users or hackers on this topic.

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jens Kjaerulff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Customizing Qualitative Software Packages?


> As a list 'lurker' and occasional contributor, I would say that replies to
> this question ought to stay 'on the list' - in public. At least I have a
> keen interest in this topic as well.
>
> I have previously thought (but not yet managed to actively investigate)
> along lines similar to Bill Kaghan, but have tended towards believing,
that
> if such flexibility of software existed, it would above all be found in
> LINUX based applications ('Open Resource Software'). I have gotten as far
> as to find out that Qualitative data analysis software for LINUX indeed
> exists, but I have never gotten to explore it in detail, not with regards
> to its 'customizability' either.
>
> But if anyone knows - also in general terms of what 'QUAL-SOFTWARE' is
> available for LINUX - please speak out - on the LIST.
>
> best // Jens
>
> At 03:48 AM 6/12/01 -0700, Bill Kaghan wrote:
> >To all,
> >
> >I am wondering if anyone can provide me with information on the
> >possibility/ease of customizing available qualitative software packages.
> >Basically, what I am interested in is whether software provides
capabilities
> >so that end-users can write macros or somewhat more complex code to
support
> >functions that are not supported in the off-the-shelf product.
> >
> >(For example, Microsoft Office is fully customizable if a person knows
VBA
> >(Visual Basic for Applications) and has some understanding of COM (Common
> >Object Model). This is over and above the standard macro capabilities.
I
> >know that it is possible for Windows based functions to build these
> >capabilities into their software that runs on Windows but I also know
that a
> >lot of small - and often large - non-Microsoft software houses don't
build
> >in customization capabilities.)
> >
> >I am guessing that it is not possible to customize any of the major
packages
> >along these lines but I would be happy to be proved wrong. If you think
it
> >is appropriate, please contact me privately rather than writing to the
> >entire list.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Bill Kaghan
> >
> >
>