Home Forums Discussions General Discussion Protocol for beta testing

Hi Bert,

I knew of no written policy regarding discussion of beta testing, I was sent an email from AC encouraging us to quickly update to 6.1.1.

I am now assuming that this email was not sent to all AC users.

Is there an official policy regarding discussions of beta versions?

Thanks. Gene

Hi Gene,

There is an explanation on the board. The email is sent to "Premiere members," which means they are hand picked. I am a beta tester for three companies and we are strictly prohibited from even letting people know it is out there. We are also given very strict guidelines, e.g. letter writer, script writer, TSP, etc. with many things to do or our beta status does not reward us with free upgrades (WHICH THEY SHOULD)

A lot of this just makes sense. Let's say the beta was sent to 75 users based on AC's knowledge of certain criteria (different hardware and software). They are looking to see if it works with those OS before they release it. You have already told them it needs hardware acceleration, which is important.

Now to the nitty gritty of why it is common sense (and please don't take that offensively).

In the excitement of the worse module in history (script writer), everyone trialed it on standalone machines including me and you. Certain beta issues are to be used on the real environment (not alpha), in order to see its real flaws. Say you hadn't happened to check the consiliation portion (great that you did) and the links got out, hundreds of users would have installed this new beta only to find out on Tuesday that you discovered that not so major bug, but yet one that could easily be fixed, keeping them from now doing a reinstall once AC fixed it.

If on the other hand, five beta testers secretly tell AC about that bug, they are able to fix it, and release a new beta to test.

To be honest, I don't think they have a strict protocol. But, can you see why it would be an issue.

I probably shouldn't say this, but those who went to Tahoe were given a full demo of this beta and except for PMs, it didn't make it to the board, at least not with full description.

I must applaud you as you did what AC wants to do all with one users. You tested it on multiple machines.

I didn't want to come across as arrogant, and I hope I didn't.

I hope this helps. Feel free to PM me.

And, I, as you, am very excited about the new beta, but we need to take it slowly. Now, everyone will want this in a few days, when given the correct process, it may need another week of beta testing.

So protocol, should have been in the Word document in the email.

Common sense (no offense) should tell us not to talk about it.

If you want to start a PM with everyone in the thread, that would be cool, but even then it introduces a bias. But, everyone could try to use reconciliation.

Hi Bert,

I am replying to the board, not as a PM, because I think this is of general interest.

No offense whatsoever taken from your comments, you can be a bit blunt at times, but you speak the truth, and have demonstrated an unbelievable willingness and ability to help. Thank you.

Two comments to your reply.

First, from a corporate point of view, all of the above makes perfect sense. Given that, a comment in the email from AC asking that info not be shared etc would have been most helpful.

Secondly, from the perspective of a busy practicing physician, I am extremely reluctant to be a beta tester. August 1 of this year is inedlibly imprinted in my brain as one of the worst professional days in recent memory. We had just upgraded to v6.0.09 over the weekend, had a very busy morning scheduled, found a close to nonfunctional AC, and tech supports answer was "Roll back, and lose this mornings data". With about 12 computers, the rollback would probably have taken 3 hours.

So I am really really reluctant to risk going through that again. Hence my desire to see if anyone else had actually done the 6.1.1 upgrade, and what their results were.

I did proceed with 6.1.1 last night, wanting to start using this on a Friday, so I would have the weekend to recover, should there be a disaster.

My suggestion is that AC have a mechanism to IMMEDIATELY alert beta testers (or prospective beta testers) of issues that are reported.

Thanks again. Gene

As the guy who apparently inappropriately posted this, here is the text of what I got via e-mail. I feel a need to defend myself.

Dear Amazing Charts Premier Users,

We have the beta release of 6.1.1 ready. The speed issues in orders, medications, Imported Items and messages have been addressed in this update. We have also added some new settings for the TSP printer. Please remember to run a backup before you start the update. I have attached our beta letter. Please read this to understand the risks. We are hoping you will be able to update by Monday. If you need assistance please reach out to one of us. We are looking forward to your feedback on how the changes affect your performance issues.

NOTHING here says "don't share this". NO ONE ever contacted me to suggest I was being asked to be part of a select sub group (I would have declined). All it says is " This is the next version. It has fixed lots of problems. Please hurry and use it". But it is still a bit experimental, so as per the attached letter expect some possible glitches."

So, if this was some secret party and I wasn't supposed to be invited, I'll leave quietly. But please don't embarrass my date.

Again, why even beta test? Why not make it a public beta with the above caveat.

David, I assume you are talking to me. Can you please show me one post I directed at you that "embarrassed your date."

I feel it necessary to post and try to explain a couple of things.

First,I am not trying to disparage, embarrass or otherwise hurt the feelings of anyone. I don't even think AC has an idea on this.

If we are going to quote the email, then this should also be included:

"We are looking forward to your feedback on how the changes affect your performance issues."

No one was wrong with talking in the thread and giving feedback especially since, as David says, there weren't any rules in the email about this.

But, we could quickly see that with the excitement of the fixes, one user already asked for the links.

I am not, again, trying to chastise anyone. I simply pointed out in all my posts that I didn't think it was a good idea to continue posting publicly.

Bert, the entire tone of these beta threads is that making the existence of a new beta public was a faux pas, and nothing that is revealed during testing should be public. I got two PM's saying that explicitly. Now, sorry if I'm a bit testy, but NOTHING in the e-mail I received implied that it was restricted knowledge. OK, it said I was a premier member. I am a premier member of everything from Amazon to my frequent flyer miles. That meant nothing.
In fact, I feel that the glitches and process should be as available and transparent as possible. Everyone who upgraded to the "production version" has been living with a buggy program. How much worse off can they be if they are sick to the gills with it and want to take a chance?

This is how worse off they can be. They can spend all of their time this weekend installing this untested beta version. Then they can find that and this is just an made up example:

Med reconciliation doesn't work
TSP printer works but breaks current printers
Messages don't go to the correct person
The program has to be connected to SQL every time it is opened
All current meds disappear upon saving the chart

Beta testing would catch these and they could be fixed before ALL of the users downloaded it.

I have gone back and read my posts. I'm sorry if you received PMs that weren't as nice as they could have been.

There is nothing in my posts that is derogatory. It was late and this was important. I thought about deleting the entire thread. But, I think that would be too far over the top.

I don't want to say you are overreacting, because that is not fair. But, you started a post which may or may not have not been the best idea based on the info you had. I agree with you on that. The rebuttals and comments were talking about the thread and not about you.

Please don't take this personally. You don't need to learn. AC needs to learn. And, as I have said at least three times, who knows, maybe I am wrong.

Okay, everyone spend 5 minutes in time out, then say you are sorry and be nice.

Actually, I'm kind of hurt -- after all the nasty things I have posted about version 6, I didn't get an invite.

Okay, I'm alright now. TGIF !

I too got the same email. The attached DOC first line was thanking me for "choosing" to beta test the new version.

I had no idea I was a "premier member". I don't remember "choosing" to beta test although I now feel special

Correct me if I'm wrong, weren't a few versions of AC still "beta" when they were released to the general public?

I think AC needs to improve a bit on their communication

Yes, they were. There are sometimes many betas before an official release. But, those are PUBLIC betas considered ready for all users. You can't get to public betas until you do private betas by a small group of people.

I have said it probably too many times, but if these links had been posted (good or bad), it would have become a public beta. ALL public betas are posted by AC on their website.

I do not think the email was explicit either way.

Well, if my posting is the worst mistake I made this week, I'll be in great shape. I'm glad we're getting real close to getting the issues resolved. Personally, I will wait a bit before giving up 5.029, but it is tempting.

I have only tested on my server, but I do feel that everyone will be impressed with the speed issues if no errors crop up - I don't blame anyone for waiting as one of the hazards of using a beta beta (fascetious)is potential for bigger errors that affect usability even more than the ones they are designed to fix.

Hopefully those of us who test it out will make sure it is safe and they will release soon

Guys, guys...it's all good!

AC heard that there was a big problem. (Ok, it took a little while, but they got it).
They rushed to get it fixed.
They came up with a fix in record time.
Feeling a sense of urgency from users, they released a limited beta, perhaps with a bit less testing than they might normally have liked.
Users who heard about it, in their excitement to improve their own issues- and to help others- shared that excitement here.

So maybe AC could have handled communication about the beta a little better. At least we know they are with us on this, their "heart is in the right place", and their intent was clearly to help as many users as quickly as possible.

If the choice is between "share news of the beta; maybe even post the link" VS. "use it, give feedback to AC, and keep it to yourself".... to me, this is a choice between "good" and "better"..and I am not sure which is which. Either way, we are much better off than we were two weeks ago.

I am going to continue to play bad guy and blame most of it on AC. It is not all good. And, I think we are all adult enough to debate things. Maybe next time when AC releases a private beta, they will do it right or those with the beta can keep it secret. For the most part the only time one should hear about the new version is when it is released.

The beta was handled wrong. Given the circumstances of the last four months or so, this release should have been posted. And, with one fix only. The script writer. Please tell me what good the beta was.

I think Jon and AC are tired of buggy software. I think they want to get this release up. But, if 200 beta testers received emails, then 40 would report back (the average is 1 in 5) that the script writer is flawless. This makes it much easier for Jon to release the upgrade with less anxiety.

Now that the cat is out of the bag:

Just installed v 6 1 1

V6 1 1 is superfast in imported items too besides prescriptions, messaging. Seems everything is faster, no sharp corners to slow down

and

all in all, a well rounded version!

I couldn?t help but notice the topic and not respond to this thread. I also viewed,6.1.1 beta thread. With all due respect, AC has a way of making me say: ?Are you kidding me? Not this again!?

One would think, one would have learned from their past mistakes. It seem as though, AC hasn?t learned from the last couple of beta releases. I?m not going to go into the whole spill about the appropriate process (phases) of beta testing. Bert has already done a fine job of explaining that to the group.

Instead, I will share this; there have to be ?True Beta Testers? to support a ?Beta Product or Prototype.? By ?True Beta Testers? I mean a certain group of people who are willing to put in their due diligence of proper testing. Beta testing is not for everyone, or a group of selected best paying, or handpicked customers. Beta testing is for people who willingly agree, to test a product thoroughly, for its required functions, asked by a company or person, with a product or prototype to be tested.

The best beta testing should be done privately (for thoroughness sake) with few testers (the best who are up for the tasks at hand). There should be some type of communication that specifies a group of ?True? testers. That testing is to be kept private until a public release is available. Beta testing is not a one week cycle. It takes weeks (at least 4 weeks). There is still much to be learned on the fundamentals of software development life cycle.

My message is by no means directed at anyone?s comments, but at the process of handling proper beta testing. Bert, you are not the bad guy here my friend. You are pretty much on point with this topic.

You think the guy who came up with the hardware acceleration fix would get the email...

As JBS pointed out, this beta has been rapidly released to quickly address the most critical issues brought up on this board and experienced by a sizable minority of our existing clients.

This "Rapid Release Beta" (as we call this type of quick-to-release-beta) has not undergone full alpha/beta testing. Instead, the code has been analyzed and gently adjusted to address the most problematic issues with a focus on not touching other aspects of the program, and without (hopefully) adding any new bugs or problems. There are no guarantees, though, and you should use this version only if you feel comfortable both with Amazing Charts AND with your computers and technology. (If this doesn't describe you, wait to ensure there are no serious new bugs or other fixes that need to get added - once we are confident this is the case, we will make this our "official" release.) More information on our testing, and the links to this version are here.

Addressing DocGene's post, unlike most other software companies, we do not have any requirements about beta testers posting their experiences with our software as long as the posts are constructive, truthful, and not self-serving. If we don't want a specific alpha or beta version discussed, we'll let you know when emailing the links - but, in general, the goals of our company and this board are full transparency and uncensored constructive discussions.

V6.1.1 does not address all bugs or problems - just the ones we believe effect the most number of clients or are the most problematic. Even so, some problems were accidentally overlooked (like the slowness when opening the Current Meds window that some staff use to enter which medications a patient is taking when they arrive for their visit), and others may not be fixed in a way that solves the problem for all users (like the printer issue noted above, which we've not experienced during our QA testing or heard from other users as yet).

I apologize to Gene and anyone else as far as the beta testing. My stance, which created a small firestorm :), was not to give the links out until Amazing Charts felt it should be a public beta.

The TSP Printer works GREAT. It has just created other issues for printing -- at least for me.

Hey Bert,

No apologies necessary. We love you (group hug)!!

6.1.1 seems like a winner. Speed better, no significant new issues. No problems printing for us.

Dr. Jon B,

Thanks for all your efforts. Overall AC has been stellar. 6.0.9 was not, but looks like that is being corrected. AC still is a fantastic product.

Jon (JBS),

I hope the Steelers win tomorrow (sorry).

Gene

Thanks Gene. Glad your printing is working as well. Hopefully, I can get both TSP and our regular print drivers to work together.

Haven't printed rx in years so cannot comment on printers, but THE SPEED IS BACK! Good-bye to the blue eye of death!

I turned off the drug interaction checker and got rid of that blue eye of death....I wonder if 6.1.1 will allow the interaction checker to be on and not be slow?? I think I'll wait this one out. Bert has me spooked. I need to print and send electronically.

Don't be too spooked. I need to test more. It will ePrescribe and print to other printers. It is just with TSP800 printer that I had issues. It did fix the TSP problem for others, but I have not heard back yet if they can print to TSP printer and have no issues with the other.

Haven't heard anything about that, Gene. How did things work out?

Hi Jon,

I thought we would be eaing Raven today, instead I'm eating crow....

Seriously, congrats on the win. I think you have a Superbowl team this year.

Gene

Actually, Bert, 6.1.1 did not fix my TSP printing issue at all....scripts still print as small postage stamp versions (only slightly larger) on the left hand side of the script. It seems that Crystal Reports is still not able to properly format the script when TSP format is selected....would be curious to see if I'm the only one that still cannot print a normal rx to the TSP??

Luis,

Not sure what settings you are using, but try 104 x 200 and not 104 x receipt. It still breaks my other printers.

I literally have tried dozens of permutations of all the different settings available on the printer: line vs. raster, friction vs no friction, all the different paper types and sizes, and so forth...the only thing I didn't mess with was the print processor ( I believe the default is RAW). It's all about how Crystal Reports generates the script.... no matter which computer, all set to the same driver through Windows Update, and always with the TSP set to default, the script generated by Crystal Reports is a 1/4 to 1/3 size script to the left side of the page, and prints out as such.

The ONLY thing that has worked is to set the prescription format to "Default" and print on a "Full Page". The script prints beautifully on the TSP, although very light in tone, but unfortunately the printer skips exactly one full page for every sheet (for some reason it scrolls down 1 page length and then prints). I've tried changing all of the settings related as well....black mark vs no black mark, Top search vs. no top search, and so on...

AC claims that the TSP issue was fixed on 6.0.10, and now it claimed that it was fixed on 6.1.1. How can they make that claim? What type of computer and TSP are they using in their testing? I can't fathom how the same software generates one type of script on one machine, and another type of script on another! This has been the single most frustrating thing I've dealt with since switching to AC....

I am curious to hear from anyone out there who tries 6.1.1 with their TSP printer..

Finally got the TSP to work on the Windows 7 with techsupport's help, but will not work on the Vista pc's; they are actively searching for a solution. Spent an hour remotely on these PC's to no avail.....weird

Are all other printers working OK? That is, if we are not using the TSP for prescriptions, does everything else seem to be working?

I am confused as to which version I should now be using. I am on 6.0.9. My IT people absolutely prohibit me using any beta versions from AC after the last debacle. Lots of speed problems, crashes, etc. So which version is the latest that is not a beta and what are your thoughts on installing it?

Eureka !
TSP 800 Prescription printer now working with version 6.1.1
and setting the paper size to 104x200 (THANKS BERT !)

To set the paper size, right click the printer in the control panel. Choose printer preferences. Choose Paper /Quality. Choose advanced. Then choose paper size of 104 x 200 and apply.

all of my other printers are working fine...

Ken, what system are you using?

Windows 7 Pro 64 bit

We are also on 6.0.9. While 6.1.1 is still in beta, it sounds like it should be in general release soon. We will wait for it. The only major reason to go to 6.0.10 in the interim seems to be because the MU wizard is more accurate than in 6.0.9. We can wait, for now.

Note that you need to do this on every computer you are using to print scripts.

all of my other printers are working fine...

Ken, what system are you using?

sorry, sent double by accident