To expand on your idea there... why not have it organized in a wiki, and link to the relevant wiki article?
I understand having an offline manual is a godsend at times, but I prefer an online resource vs a PDF. This is my personal preference, though.
My solution gives you both worlds.
The Manual (PDF) Opens in your Browser, but it opens to the exact Page that pertains to the place the User is in the Application. That way, the User doesn't have to figure out where the relevant information is, because it is "right there"
And, at that point, or any other, that the User wishes to d/l the Manual, it is not some series of HTML pages, it is a nice, self-contained PDF. Same thing if the User wants to browse around a bit in the Manual. MUCH easier to do in a PDF than in an HTML manual, because a PDF can still essentially be "HyperText"; but, unlike ANY HTML Manual I have ever seen, you can EASILY download it, print out a hardcopy, make annotations (how do your "annotate" a CHM or HTML Page?), etc. etc.
And for all the smartasses that want to "educate" me about website-scrapers, and CHM-to-PDF Applications, there are two major issues with this:
1. An HTML Manual becomes fairly useless when all the nicely-prepared Links are "flattened", because that isn't the way it was designed to be "consumed".
2. CHM-Pages (and HTML Pages) are NEVER designed with Letter/A4 Paper in mind; so if you DO print them to hardcopy, you almost always end up with a fairly ugly result. Whereas PDF is designed (for better or worse) to be a replica of the printed page.
And before someone tells me to Think Of The Trees(tm), sometimes it is just nicer to be able to print-out at least a portion of a Manual, rather than try to paw back-and-forth between Documentation and Application windows (assuming you don't have multiple displays available, or they are already taken-up with Source Code, Debugger, Output, etc. windows). Nothing is more annoying, for example, than trying to follow a tutorial.when you are constantly having to do window-management...
I test with users for a living, and I agree that this is a false choice. You should have both. I would say however, that a big source of frustration for users when they need to dig into the manual is digging thru to find what they really want to do. The UX should support ease of use for most people. The manual should focus on everyone else. (Possibly supported by a quick-help guide for the really basic user.)
YMMV
I have been incorporating "online help" available directly from the application. These "help" buttons are linked to Bookmarks in a MS Word -> PDF document that is located on an Amazon S3 Server. The nice thing is, unlike your typical "Help File", which tend to have "explanations" that are circular, or that refer to even MORE gobbledegook, this is the "real" documentation, "opened" to EXACTLY the relevant Page.
Personally, I think this is a much better alternative to a simple "here's your PDF, have at it" (they can still save-as the pdf for offline perusal), or even worse, the usually all-too-brief typical "CHM" file-style "Help" docs.
So Samsung goes out of their way to slag Apple about their stylistic approach to phones only to copy them? Wow. Just wow. Now you should understand why most iPhone fanboys laugh an Samesung.
Personally, I think that this announcement is suspiciously timed, coming RIGHT after Apple and Samsung agree to bury the lawsuit-hatchet (at least outside of the U.S.)
've never understood why passwords can't be sentences, like "I'm going to take my dog, Spot, to the park today." It's much easier to remember for the layperson
You say that; but I once created a whole-diskette encryption system for the Apple ][ (you laugh; but...), and it allowed for passphrases up to 30 (or so) characters. Like the perfect idiot, I decided to encrypt the SOURCE DISK for my Encryption code with a phrase from a Firesign Theatre Album.
The passphrase was "Holmes, you snowball!" Simple to remember, right?
Well, either I mistyped something when I entered the passphrase in the Encryption phase, or I forgot some variant of comma, no comma, number of exclamation points, or something; because to this day, that source code is safely locked away on the master diskette, never to be seen (or installed), again...
Anonymous Coward an hour ago
I was asked to write a script to collect email metadata passing through an ISP I worked at for sending to government servers. The metadata is collected in a XML format as directed by the governments specification I recieved in PDF. It was just metadata, not message content. I sent them everything including spam. There is much noise in the signal they receive.
Good for you for reducing the signal-to-noise ratio! Hopefully, your equivalents at other ISPs are as careful as you were in following the "all email" requirements to the letter...;-)
It's not the postman reading it though is it? There is a difference between an employee of the post office reading an address to route mail properly vs. gathering all address, storing them and creating programs to discover all connections and relationships between addressees.
It's not that they read the meta data that's the problem, it's what they do with it.
What scares me is that, in the US at least, every single piece of first-class mail is now individually SERIAL-Numbered, obviously so it can be tracked and databased.
The proof lies in the new (and actually quite clever) barcode (too lazy to look up the name) that replaced POSTNET (that barcode at the bottom of envelopes) about a year ago. The new barcode is actually coded to sync, mailpiece-by-mailpiece with an Excel spreadsheet that "bulk" mailers now HAVE to submit BEFORE they mail, and each and every mailpiece is individually serial-numbered, and receives a UNKQUE barcode, just like Registered or Certified mail.
I discovered this when I was writing a function to place POSTNET barcode on a shipping label, and found that the code had JUST been deprecated.
Then, I found out how far down into the "insignificant mailings" that went when I received two identical late-pay notices from a local utility. Both were mailed from the same "mailer"address, undoubtedly under the same "bulk-rate-presort contract no.", to the same name and address, and on the same date. In other words, data which would have generated identical POSTNET bar codes; but in this case, the barcodes on these plain-old ordinary first-class mailings was DIFFERENT. Since I already knew that the new code allowed for "serializing", and knew about the Excel "manifest" requirement, I came to the inescapable conclusion that the Gummint was actually tracking and likely databasing even such uninteresting and prosaic mailings as utility bills. This is ridiculous.
However, I personally believe that what that REALLY means is that the mailpieces that DON'T correlate to a record in a Manifest are actually tracked MORE closely.
So, this means that your most PERSONAL of snailmail (if indeed anyone sends actual snailmail "letters" these days) is likely being tracked with increased scuitiny than other snailmail.
Yes, only idiots take their eyes off the road to change something. We need legislation to outlaw this and any other distraction. No more should we put up with people changing radio stations and adjusting the a/c. In fact, that legislation should include a head harness requirement that mandates always looking forward. God know humans have no ability to manage their own actions, so government needs to rescue us from our own stupidity. (Buy I guess that's pretty stupid to...)
There was an "invention" in MAD Magazine in the mid-1960s (the author of the "article" was the legendary Dave Berg, IIRC) that was EXACTLY that!
I would allow your head to turn, but only for a short period (the driver in question was shown ogling a busty woman walking down the sidewalk), then it snapped your head back to the "straight ahead" position (and as shown in the magazine, apparently leaving the driver's false-teeth and eyeballs behind, IIRC)...
Just because a given computer CAN run a newer version than 10.5 doesn't mean it's a good idea. My 2009 MacBook was just awful after that touted "free upgrade" to Mavericks. It was so bad, I ended up ejecting from the Apple ecosystem.
There's also the matter of Rosetta, which isn't available from Lion forward. For some people, running an old software product in emulation gets the job done. Why should they be forced to upgrade?
Idiot.
Why didn't you just torrent a copy of whichever version of OS X before Mavericks that would be to your liking (like 10.6)? That runs almost all "new" software, while still providing Rosetta for PPC compatibility.
The much bigger factor is the "no warning" part. Something like this should be announced well in advance, so anyone affected can make arrangements. Microsoft has Patch Tuesday, so everyone can be ready in case their updates bork something. Disabling an entire platform (PPC OSX) certainly requires notice.
(I'm trusting the summary; it's possible they did announce it, but people didn't see or listen to it)
At NINE YEARS after the last PPC-capable Mac rolled off the assembly line, it may have be nice to have more notice; but it certainly wasn't unconscionable.
I can't believe I am defending Microsoft; but I don't think the average Slashdotter has really thought through the timeline.
In other news, Digital Equipment Corp. has announced plans to discontinue the PDP-8...
Don't get me wrong; I dearly love my G5 tower. It will likely run until the sun goes out; but I had to replace it about a year ago; because there just wasn't any new software (like even web-browsers) that were "keeping up" with the rest of the "technologies" that everyone else was using. In other words, I was increasingly not allowed to play in the Reindeer Games everyone else was enjoying.
That's nobody's "fault"; it's just a fact of life in the world of "technology".
FFS! Why do I even have to explain this to Slashdot-Readers?!?
> It's impossible to make something as complex as a consumer oriented OS without any bugs at all.
It certainly is, particularly when what you really do is release the same old OS with a few API changes, but you massively ramp up the amount of badly-written, badly-designed components completely outside the purview of an OS that ship with it.
The version number is fairly arbitrary. The Windows control panel / advanced / edit environment variables dialog looks pretty much the same to me.
A FEW API Changes???
Just the "Delta" from OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) to 10.10 (Yosemite) boasts something like FOUR THOUSAND API changes. Now multiply that by the FIVE major releases since OS X 10.5 (Leopard) (not to mention a completely new hardware platform!), and across TWO OSes (OS X and iOS) and I think you need to re-examine the above statement.
Because we're really, really tired of software that uselessly, needlessly, requires the "latest and greatest" operating system for no good reason at all, that's why.
It's not only the OS, it's the Development Toolchain (XCode).
I am sure that the most recent version of XCode doesn't have the ability to target PowerPC Macs, and I believe that has been true for at least 2 or even 3 major revisions of XCode.
But now I suppose you'll complain that XCode should be able to target 68k Macs, and have Libraries and Frameworks that are compatible with the Macintosh Toolbox ROMs, too, right?
Face it. Time marches on, and we really are talking about an Architecture that Apple discontinued NINE years ago. Hard to believe; but it's true.
I didn't like watching App after App discontinue (or never embrace) the hardware in my beloved (still running) 2005 G5 Tower (but to their credit, Apple even supported PPC on such majorly-huge Apps such as Final Cut Pro, Logic and iTunes, clear up until the most-recent versions (IOW, until about 2 years ago)). But eventually, if you are still driving a buggy, you gotta accept the fact that, at some point, you simply aren't going to be able to buy buggy whips...
The real problem is going to be those Skype users with long-term subscription plans. They may have to invest in VMWare Fusion, which allows infidel operating systems, including any version of Windows, to be run in "sandboxes" on OS X. You can then install a Windows version of Skype on the sandboxed OS.
VMWare only runs on Intel-based Macs. This issue only affects the few PPC Mac Users, or the even smaller number of 10.5 Users with Intel Macs... And the latter can Upgrade their OS to a "supported" (by Skype) version.
Or when Apple removes the software blocks preventing people from using MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
How does that matter here, unless you happen to have a non-Apple PowerPC-based computer?
OS X 10.5 (Leopard) was the last version of OS X that was compiled for PowerPC (there was a separate build for Intel). Pretty much everyone who had an Intel Mac at that time eventually moved on to 10.6 (Snow Leopard) or beyond.
So effectively, this only affects the very few Mac users still rocking a PPC Mac.
I hatez the Microsoft as much as any Slashdotter; but even I had to let go of my precious PPC Mac a year or so ago, because there simply wasn't any new Development happening for PPC, either by Apple or third-party Devs.
I develop boards running at 40Gbps+. "Scopes" (DCA really) at that level become so expensive and esoteric, we often design "blind". Just getting the probe to stay put for five minutes is a major accomplishment, and you still have the feeling that the probing loaded the signal anyways.
Good for you! Now you admit you should know better!
I agree that at those frequencies, "scopes" are very expensive, and signal-loading from the probes themselves is a real problem.
But I also point out that not one "hobbyist" out of 100,000 is designing in that world. But they probably often ARE developing mixed-mode Analog/Digital designs, where things like ground-bounce (which BTW, does matter in purely digital designs as well), supply filtering, analog signal paths, and the like, are simply not amenable to either "blind" development, nor your "DMM and Logic Analyzer" approach.
The answer is, you stepped in it; but rather than concede that you were being hasty in your dismissal of oscilloscopes as some sort of engineering dinosaur that should go the way of the slide-rule (slide-rule enthusiasts give it a rest!), you instead simply keep attempting to defend the indefensible.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever visited Wal-Mart Online? Talk about "no shelf-space limitations"!!!
They have everything AND the Kitchen Sink!:
http://www.walmart.com/browse/...
Sorry, no.
I type many HTML tags on my iPad. It seems to be something with Slashdot's mobile site.
Try to get 70% out of any other distribution channel.
Hate to Reply to my own post; but apparently Slashdot Mobile doesn't allow embedding even a simple "a" Tag.
Here's what I was trying to link: http://www.ohmibod.com/app/
Obviously, with Apps like this/ available on the Apple App Store, they obviously have relaxed their "puritanical" curation quite a bit.
Remember the removal of all the "Booby" Apps? Apparently, those days are gone...
To expand on your idea there... why not have it organized in a wiki, and link to the relevant wiki article?
I understand having an offline manual is a godsend at times, but I prefer an online resource vs a PDF. This is my personal preference, though.
My solution gives you both worlds.
The Manual (PDF) Opens in your Browser, but it opens to the exact Page that pertains to the place the User is in the Application. That way, the User doesn't have to figure out where the relevant information is, because it is "right there"
And, at that point, or any other, that the User wishes to d/l the Manual, it is not some series of HTML pages, it is a nice, self-contained PDF. Same thing if the User wants to browse around a bit in the Manual. MUCH easier to do in a PDF than in an HTML manual, because a PDF can still essentially be "HyperText"; but, unlike ANY HTML Manual I have ever seen, you can EASILY download it, print out a hardcopy, make annotations (how do your "annotate" a CHM or HTML Page?), etc. etc.
And for all the smartasses that want to "educate" me about website-scrapers, and CHM-to-PDF Applications, there are two major issues with this:
1. An HTML Manual becomes fairly useless when all the nicely-prepared Links are "flattened", because that isn't the way it was designed to be "consumed".
2. CHM-Pages (and HTML Pages) are NEVER designed with Letter/A4 Paper in mind; so if you DO print them to hardcopy, you almost always end up with a fairly ugly result. Whereas PDF is designed (for better or worse) to be a replica of the printed page.
And before someone tells me to Think Of The Trees(tm), sometimes it is just nicer to be able to print-out at least a portion of a Manual, rather than try to paw back-and-forth between Documentation and Application windows (assuming you don't have multiple displays available, or they are already taken-up with Source Code, Debugger, Output, etc. windows). Nothing is more annoying, for example, than trying to follow a tutorial.when you are constantly having to do window-management...
I test with users for a living, and I agree that this is a false choice. You should have both. I would say however, that a big source of frustration for users when they need to dig into the manual is digging thru to find what they really want to do. The UX should support ease of use for most people. The manual should focus on everyone else. (Possibly supported by a quick-help guide for the really basic user.) YMMV
I have been incorporating "online help" available directly from the application. These "help" buttons are linked to Bookmarks in a MS Word -> PDF document that is located on an Amazon S3 Server. The nice thing is, unlike your typical "Help File", which tend to have "explanations" that are circular, or that refer to even MORE gobbledegook, this is the "real" documentation, "opened" to EXACTLY the relevant Page.
Personally, I think this is a much better alternative to a simple "here's your PDF, have at it" (they can still save-as the pdf for offline perusal), or even worse, the usually all-too-brief typical "CHM" file-style "Help" docs.
No, he thinks the iPhone is the only phone that looks just like an iPhone, up until this moment at least.
No. Not hardly.
That's what a few of the Apple lawsuits against Samsung were about.
So Samsung goes out of their way to slag Apple about their stylistic approach to phones only to copy them? Wow. Just wow. Now you should understand why most iPhone fanboys laugh an Samesung.
Personally, I think that this announcement is suspiciously timed, coming RIGHT after Apple and Samsung agree to bury the lawsuit-hatchet (at least outside of the U.S.)
Kind of sad, since they were such a pioneer in computing and related fields.
Yeah, that's a real knee-slapper!
So, how does cracking a password on one site gain you any knowledge whatsoever as to where, in the vastness of the internet, that it was used again?
The email address they used to register is the obvious one. They may also have connected social media accounts to whatever site got hacked.
You are making a lot of assumptions there; but, ok, I guess...
"This post was written on a Microsoft Surface Pro 3" By a MS Fanboy that gets paid for posting 'good' reviews
You mean from an AC MS Fanboy.
As you said: Paid Shill.
If the user has reused their password elsewhere this doesn't reset those too.
Yes; but the Internet is big.
Really big.
So, how does cracking a password on one site gain you any knowledge whatsoever as to where, in the vastness of the internet, that it was used again?
've never understood why passwords can't be sentences, like "I'm going to take my dog, Spot, to the park today." It's much easier to remember for the layperson
You say that; but I once created a whole-diskette encryption system for the Apple ][ (you laugh; but...), and it allowed for passphrases up to 30 (or so) characters. Like the perfect idiot, I decided to encrypt the SOURCE DISK for my Encryption code with a phrase from a Firesign Theatre Album.
The passphrase was "Holmes, you snowball!" Simple to remember, right?
Well, either I mistyped something when I entered the passphrase in the Encryption phase, or I forgot some variant of comma, no comma, number of exclamation points, or something; because to this day, that source code is safely locked away on the master diskette, never to be seen (or installed), again...
Anonymous Coward an hour ago I was asked to write a script to collect email metadata passing through an ISP I worked at for sending to government servers. The metadata is collected in a XML format as directed by the governments specification I recieved in PDF. It was just metadata, not message content. I sent them everything including spam. There is much noise in the signal they receive.
Good for you for reducing the signal-to-noise ratio! Hopefully, your equivalents at other ISPs are as careful as you were in following the "all email" requirements to the letter... ;-)
It's not the postman reading it though is it? There is a difference between an employee of the post office reading an address to route mail properly vs. gathering all address, storing them and creating programs to discover all connections and relationships between addressees. It's not that they read the meta data that's the problem, it's what they do with it.
What scares me is that, in the US at least, every single piece of first-class mail is now individually SERIAL-Numbered, obviously so it can be tracked and databased.
The proof lies in the new (and actually quite clever) barcode (too lazy to look up the name) that replaced POSTNET (that barcode at the bottom of envelopes) about a year ago. The new barcode is actually coded to sync, mailpiece-by-mailpiece with an Excel spreadsheet that "bulk" mailers now HAVE to submit BEFORE they mail, and each and every mailpiece is individually serial-numbered, and receives a UNKQUE barcode, just like Registered or Certified mail.
I discovered this when I was writing a function to place POSTNET barcode on a shipping label, and found that the code had JUST been deprecated.
Then, I found out how far down into the "insignificant mailings" that went when I received two identical late-pay notices from a local utility. Both were mailed from the same "mailer"address, undoubtedly under the same "bulk-rate-presort contract no.", to the same name and address, and on the same date. In other words, data which would have generated identical POSTNET bar codes; but in this case, the barcodes on these plain-old ordinary first-class mailings was DIFFERENT. Since I already knew that the new code allowed for "serializing", and knew about the Excel "manifest" requirement, I came to the inescapable conclusion that the Gummint was actually tracking and likely databasing even such uninteresting and prosaic mailings as utility bills. This is ridiculous.
However, I personally believe that what that REALLY means is that the mailpieces that DON'T correlate to a record in a Manifest are actually tracked MORE closely.
So, this means that your most PERSONAL of snailmail (if indeed anyone sends actual snailmail "letters" these days) is likely being tracked with increased scuitiny than other snailmail.
Yes, only idiots take their eyes off the road to change something. We need legislation to outlaw this and any other distraction. No more should we put up with people changing radio stations and adjusting the a/c. In fact, that legislation should include a head harness requirement that mandates always looking forward. God know humans have no ability to manage their own actions, so government needs to rescue us from our own stupidity. (Buy I guess that's pretty stupid to...)
There was an "invention" in MAD Magazine in the mid-1960s (the author of the "article" was the legendary Dave Berg, IIRC) that was EXACTLY that!
I would allow your head to turn, but only for a short period (the driver in question was shown ogling a busty woman walking down the sidewalk), then it snapped your head back to the "straight ahead" position (and as shown in the magazine, apparently leaving the driver's false-teeth and eyeballs behind, IIRC)...
Just because a given computer CAN run a newer version than 10.5 doesn't mean it's a good idea. My 2009 MacBook was just awful after that touted "free upgrade" to Mavericks. It was so bad, I ended up ejecting from the Apple ecosystem.
There's also the matter of Rosetta, which isn't available from Lion forward. For some people, running an old software product in emulation gets the job done. Why should they be forced to upgrade?
Idiot.
Why didn't you just torrent a copy of whichever version of OS X before Mavericks that would be to your liking (like 10.6)? That runs almost all "new" software, while still providing Rosetta for PPC compatibility.
The much bigger factor is the "no warning" part. Something like this should be announced well in advance, so anyone affected can make arrangements. Microsoft has Patch Tuesday, so everyone can be ready in case their updates bork something. Disabling an entire platform (PPC OSX) certainly requires notice.
(I'm trusting the summary; it's possible they did announce it, but people didn't see or listen to it)
At NINE YEARS after the last PPC-capable Mac rolled off the assembly line, it may have be nice to have more notice; but it certainly wasn't unconscionable.
I can't believe I am defending Microsoft; but I don't think the average Slashdotter has really thought through the timeline.
In other news, Digital Equipment Corp. has announced plans to discontinue the PDP-8...
Don't get me wrong; I dearly love my G5 tower. It will likely run until the sun goes out; but I had to replace it about a year ago; because there just wasn't any new software (like even web-browsers) that were "keeping up" with the rest of the "technologies" that everyone else was using. In other words, I was increasingly not allowed to play in the Reindeer Games everyone else was enjoying.
That's nobody's "fault"; it's just a fact of life in the world of "technology".
FFS! Why do I even have to explain this to Slashdot-Readers?!?
> It's impossible to make something as complex as a consumer oriented OS without any bugs at all. It certainly is, particularly when what you really do is release the same old OS with a few API changes, but you massively ramp up the amount of badly-written, badly-designed components completely outside the purview of an OS that ship with it.
The version number is fairly arbitrary. The Windows control panel / advanced / edit environment variables dialog looks pretty much the same to me.
A FEW API Changes??? Just the "Delta" from OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) to 10.10 (Yosemite) boasts something like FOUR THOUSAND API changes. Now multiply that by the FIVE major releases since OS X 10.5 (Leopard) (not to mention a completely new hardware platform!), and across TWO OSes (OS X and iOS) and I think you need to re-examine the above statement.
Because we're really, really tired of software that uselessly, needlessly, requires the "latest and greatest" operating system for no good reason at all, that's why.
It's not only the OS, it's the Development Toolchain (XCode).
I am sure that the most recent version of XCode doesn't have the ability to target PowerPC Macs, and I believe that has been true for at least 2 or even 3 major revisions of XCode.
But now I suppose you'll complain that XCode should be able to target 68k Macs, and have Libraries and Frameworks that are compatible with the Macintosh Toolbox ROMs, too, right?
Face it. Time marches on, and we really are talking about an Architecture that Apple discontinued NINE years ago. Hard to believe; but it's true.
I didn't like watching App after App discontinue (or never embrace) the hardware in my beloved (still running) 2005 G5 Tower (but to their credit, Apple even supported PPC on such majorly-huge Apps such as Final Cut Pro, Logic and iTunes, clear up until the most-recent versions (IOW, until about 2 years ago)). But eventually, if you are still driving a buggy, you gotta accept the fact that, at some point, you simply aren't going to be able to buy buggy whips...
The real problem is going to be those Skype users with long-term subscription plans. They may have to invest in VMWare Fusion, which allows infidel operating systems, including any version of Windows, to be run in "sandboxes" on OS X. You can then install a Windows version of Skype on the sandboxed OS.
VMWare only runs on Intel-based Macs. This issue only affects the few PPC Mac Users, or the even smaller number of 10.5 Users with Intel Macs... And the latter can Upgrade their OS to a "supported" (by Skype) version.
Or when Apple removes the software blocks preventing people from using MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
How does that matter here, unless you happen to have a non-Apple PowerPC-based computer?
OS X 10.5 (Leopard) was the last version of OS X that was compiled for PowerPC (there was a separate build for Intel). Pretty much everyone who had an Intel Mac at that time eventually moved on to 10.6 (Snow Leopard) or beyond.
So effectively, this only affects the very few Mac users still rocking a PPC Mac.
I hatez the Microsoft as much as any Slashdotter; but even I had to let go of my precious PPC Mac a year or so ago, because there simply wasn't any new Development happening for PPC, either by Apple or third-party Devs.
I develop boards running at 40Gbps+. "Scopes" (DCA really) at that level become so expensive and esoteric, we often design "blind". Just getting the probe to stay put for five minutes is a major accomplishment, and you still have the feeling that the probing loaded the signal anyways.
Good for you! Now you admit you should know better!
I agree that at those frequencies, "scopes" are very expensive, and signal-loading from the probes themselves is a real problem.
But I also point out that not one "hobbyist" out of 100,000 is designing in that world. But they probably often ARE developing mixed-mode Analog/Digital designs, where things like ground-bounce (which BTW, does matter in purely digital designs as well), supply filtering, analog signal paths, and the like, are simply not amenable to either "blind" development, nor your "DMM and Logic Analyzer" approach.
The answer is, you stepped in it; but rather than concede that you were being hasty in your dismissal of oscilloscopes as some sort of engineering dinosaur that should go the way of the slide-rule (slide-rule enthusiasts give it a rest!), you instead simply keep attempting to defend the indefensible.
Pretty immature and illogical, don't you think?
I don't design and build my own brushless motor controller for example. What the hell for?
Hey, I designed that Brushless Motor Controller, you insensitive clod!