Double quality standard by t-writers (was: Front Page Fussy)

[AlQuin <cbon -at- WXS -dot- NL>]

On 18-01-1999 19:04 Peter Taylor wrote:

>>On 12-01-1999 23:41 Tracy Boyington answered Peter Taylor:
>>
>>>> Look at it this way: You paid around $75-$100 dollars to purchase
>[snip]
>>>been done wrong.* I consider that a failure for any product.
>>
>>Why do we maintain a double standard for quality here, Peter, one for
>our
>>work and one for our tools: You would not accept a manual holding 25%
>of
>>inaccurate information (I presume...). But for a piece of software by
>>Microsoft you have a 'build-in' error factor.
>>What makes this name so particular to reserve a softer quality to it?
>>Any suggestions?
>
>We took this thread off-line a while ago. I'm not particularly
>interested in continuing it, but you may email me privately if you feel
>strongly about it.
>

OK:

Why do we use to keep a double standard for quality, one for our work and
one for our tools: You would not accept a manual holding 25% of
inaccurate information (I presume...). But for a piece of software by
e.g. Microsoft you have a 'build-in' error factor.
What makes this name so particular to reserve a softer quality to it?
Any suggestions?

Regards


AlQuin
informationflow-improvement
                      text
                document
business communication
total quality

* In managing your information you will control your quality...


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=