NAV 2013 - An Open Letter to the NAV Dev. Team

OldNavDog

DenSter wrote:

People in here can hopefully appreciate just how much work it is to write good material, and that the NAV team wants to create the training material based on the final version (there were a couple of big changes in the report dataset designer even between CTP3 and the beta version). Given the fact that the final product has only just been released to manufacturing, I don't think it's that much of a surprise that good material will lag behind a little bit.

(snip)

NAV 2013 hasn't even come out, I think we should all take a chill pill and be a bit more patient.

So, what you are really saying is that there really isn't a design spec, and that things are just made up as they go along?!? "Big changes" that late in the development cycle is a Very Bad Sign.

And we're not talking about "slightly incorrect" documentation being available pre-release; everyone understands that. What I'm saying is there basically has been zero documentation that even attempts to be compliant with the new version. As I said before, this version wasn't written in a day, or a week, or even a year. Why aren't there more than two measly tutorials, one of which is not only unreasonably complex (Report With Multiple Tables); but even worse, has a serious error (instructing the student to create a Row outside a Group, when it is meant to be inside the Group) (or vice-versa). You have no idea how much "fun" that caused!

I've designed more than a few products myself, both software and embedded systems, and even when it was a one-man-show, the end-user documentation was ready to go and tested as part of the release-to-manufacturing process, not as an afterthought.

So you can save your apologies for someone who doesn't understand product development. The "Partner" channel should have had documentation and PowerPoints and Online Training available (even if a little different from the RTM version) for weeks or months. Not have to wait weeks or months for documentation to play "catch up". Some of us don't have time to wait.

It isn't like 2009 will still be available for after 2013 "ships". When 2009 R2 is gone, it's gone!!!

So, there really isn't any time to "sit back and wait". When a customer calls and wants a version upgrade a week after 2013 is released, a VAR can't really say "We need to wait a few months on that". When someone calls an ISV and asks "When is your product going to be available for 2013?", the ISV risks serious potential loss of sales if they can't say "Very soon.".

And now you want us all to wait for, well, who knows how long, for maybe some documentation from maybe some third-party sources, and maybe from Microsoft? Give me a break!

DenSter

I'm not saying that it is unreasonable to expect good documentation, that's been a sore point for me too, but come on.....

NAV 2013 is not even released yet, so in my opinion it is not that strange that the documentation is not there yet. Officially, it is not even a product yet. How do you expect there to be comprehensive help files, training material, design documentation, books by 3rd party authors? If you expect that to be there before the product is even released, you must be living in some fantasy world.

And don't say there is 'zero documentation' because that is just not true. Granted, it's in the typically obscure and hard to find manner that we're used to, but there is a ton of material out there. For this particular version I am seeing a HUGE effort on the NAV team's part to come out with readiness material. I don't think there has ever been a public beta for instance, and this is the first time that I can remember that there are videos and blog posts about a new version ahead of the release date. In comparison with previous releases we are having an information overload, and that to me says that they are taking serious steps to address information.

I totally agree that we can always use more, and I also totally agree that the dev training material lacks real substance especially in reporting and new features. I'm going to reserve judgment on content at least until they had a chance to produce some, and I've had an opportunity to evaluate the final release.

As for sharing.... give me a frickin' break. The biggest complainers in the forums NEVER share anything, the only thing I see come out of the biggest whiners is reams of dissatisfaction about what a poor job everybody else is doing. Some of the people in here claim to have worked on reporting for untold numbers of hours, yet instead of sharing their experiences, they troll topics like these to spew their guts out.

I completely agree that it is MSFT's job to provide primary material, and I also agree that traditionally it has lacked severely, and I am also very frustrated that it takes them forever. However, I certainly do not like the level of negativity in topics like these, because I have seen how hard the NAV team is working and I don't think it is quite fair to give them THIS much crap about it. I guess I'm just optimistic, looking at how much has already come out, that this time we are going to get better stuff.

deV.ch

Well let me say i had a hard time learning RDLC when 2009 was released, I read lots of blogs, books, attended trainings, etc. All of that to be sometimes completly lost because of the not intuitive (at least fur nav reports) overloaded designer and most important, because of the lack of good guidelines for the real problems: Document reports.
I mean simple list reports are absolutly no problem, in fact they are faster created then ever before! Changing apearances = brilliant! all the features we ever missed in classic are here now!
But what realy is the day to day buisness are document reports and when you look at 2009 you see taht even MS had no clue to design them... Take 5 Document reports, and all of them use different aproaches in key features (page numbers, Header data, grouping, totaling....)

But to be honest these are all 2009 problems, if you complain now, when 2013 is released, you missed something. You are already late, by the time of now you need to know rdlc, and you need to know good. Because you had all the time to learn it.

I must admit i haven't started converting to 2013 but from what i know there are no conceptional changes, there are behaviour changes sure but things you learn from rdlc2005 arn't obsolete with rdlc2008!

So why are you complaining this late? Such a discusion is imo way too late, the introduction of rdlc was a mess, i agree. But now its here and i think we all should have learned it by now.

BTW: That doesn't mean I don't want solid documentation & how-to's on the rdlc topic

einsTeIn.NET

DenSter wrote:

I'm not saying that it is unreasonable to expect good documentation, that's been a sore point for me too, but come on.....

NAV 2013 is not even released yet, so in my opinion it is not that strange that the documentation is not there yet. Officially, it is not a product yet. How do you expect there to be comprehensive help files, training material, design documentation, books by 3rd party authors. If you expect that to be there before the product is even released, you must be living in some fantasy world.

Not 3rd party stuff, but all the other should be available. That's not a fantasy world, that's the way good software products should be released. And I don't believe that MS will provide anything better when it's officially released. Maybe some of us don't remember, but we made the same experience when 2009 was released.

einsTeIn.NET

deV.ch wrote:

But to be honest these are all 2009 problems, if you complain now, when 2013 is released, you missed something. You are already late, by the time of now you need to know rdlc, and you need to know good. Because you had all the time to learn it.

That's the point. We stopped all of our 2009 updates and releases because there were so much issues we can't struggle with during our normal business goes on. Now, that 2013 will be available very soon, we hoped that this would be better. But to be honest we are now thinking of postpone the updates again and wait for 2013 R2.

DenSter

OldNavDog wrote:

So, what you are really saying is that there really isn't a design spec, and that things are just made up as they go along?!?

No I am not saying that at all, you're completely twisting my words around for dramatic effect. Nice try but no. Been affected by the election rhetoric eh

OldNavDog wrote:

Why aren't there more than two measly tutorials

Again, overly dramatic exaggeration.

OldNavDog wrote:

So you can save your apologies

More dramatization. I'm not apologizing to anyone about anything.

OldNavDog wrote:

So, there really isn't any time to "sit back and wait". When a customer calls and wants a version upgrade a week after 2013 is released, a VAR can't really say "We need to wait a few months on that". When someone calls an ISV and asks "When is your product going to be available for 2013?", the ISV risks serious potential loss of sales if they can't say "Very soon.".

I think this is a really excellent point, but I also want to say that the ISV's have responsibility here as well. A number of partners and ISV partners have been involved over the past two years, working with MSFT on NAV '7'. There have been plenty of opportunities for serious ISV's to be prepared, and I just do not have a lot of sympathy for those that point the finger squarely at MSFT for not being prepared.

OldNavDog wrote:

And now you want us all to wait for, well, who knows how long, for maybe some documentation from maybe some third-party sources, and maybe from Microsoft? Give me a break!

Sheesh dude, more drama, you should write a novel or a screenplay or something . I don't want anyone to wait. I also want everything to be available right the heck now, but I also have understanding that there is a limited amount of manpower available, and I don't get my panties in a bunch when they prioritize things a certain way. Great points about needing good documentation, and I agree that it can always be better, I just think the rhetoric can be toned down a few notches.

deV.ch

einsTeIn.NET wrote:

deV.ch wrote:

But to be honest these are all 2009 problems, if you complain now, when 2013 is released, you missed something. You are already late, by the time of now you need to know rdlc, and you need to know good. Because you had all the time to learn it.

That's the point. We stopped all of our 2009 updates and releases because there were so much issues we can't struggle with during our normal business goes on. Now, that 2013 will be available very soon, we hoped that this would be better. But to be honest we are now thinking of postpone the updates again and wait for 2013 R2.

So you will wait forever... It's like waiting for the best time to buy new computer hardware...

Even MS did not expect that you upgrade all your reports to RDLC at once. Thats why you had the possiblity to run classic reports as well, but when you upgrade none of these and still have to upgrade a whole lot of them by the release of 2013 (4 years is a long time...) then you may did not understand what that feature was built for.

Jens_M-P

Going back to a previous post in this thread:

OldNavDog wrote:

One thing I will urge everyone to do with new 2013 databases: Immediately set up a User that has a SPECIFIC Role Center that is NOT the Default Role Center (and preferably one that has a lot of access). That way, at least ONE User will be able to log in if something happens to the Default Role Center, and "fix things".

Just for completeness, then I would like to point out that you can use the following command line options when starting the client:

-disablepersonalization Disables personalization in the client
-profile:name Loads the specified profile
-? Displays the possible options

einsTeIn.NET

deV.ch wrote:

So you will wait forever... It's like waiting for the best time to buy new computer hardware...

:? ... No! Do you really want to compare buying hardware with buying business software?

deV.ch wrote:

Even MS did not expect that you upgrade all your reports to RDLC at once. Thats why you had the possiblity to run classic reports as well, but when you upgrade none of these and still have to upgrade a whole lot of them by the release of 2013 (4 years is a long time...) then you may did not understand what that feature was built for.

You have to install RTC and CC on the users machine to use both kind of reports in parallel. Additionally you have to resize your servers and infrastructure to be prepared for 3-Tier-Architecture. You have to update your remote desktop systems. You have to test and approve your major standard features. You have to train all your users. You have to wait for your ISV to provide a feasible release of their vertical solution in that version.... And btw it's not only reports and RDL. But you are right, 4 years is plenty of time... if you do nothing else but struggle with this release.

deV.ch

Well doing a customer upgrade is another thing, i thought you talk about your own solution. (And my point was about waiting for the right time/release)

Yes you have a lot to strugle with besides the rdlc, and in this bigger picture its not that simple i totaly agree with you. But all i just say is that it will never be the right time to do it and the longer you wait the harder it gets.

My point was about making the invenstment in learning rdlc, that was something we could have done all from the first day on when 2009 was released.

But i totaly agree with you about the issues in upgrading an existing customer, they still exist!

einsTeIn.NET

deV.ch wrote:

But all i just say is that it will never be the right time to do it and the longer you wait the harder it gets.

My point was about making the invenstment in learning rdlc, that was something we could have done all from the first day on when 2009 was released.

That's exactly where I'm coming from. We have got some business needs that could be solved by an update or at least where an update could be helpful. But we hesitate to invest in employee education (e.g. RDLC training) until the product is stable and well documentated. I mean it doesn't make no sense if the trainer doesn't know what's going on either. Or if the book is outdated next week. We don't want to spend time and money on education twice simply just because the product is not business ready. And you can be sure we won't wait forever but keep our eyes open for other solutions.

Alex_Chow

This thread really amazes me.

I've been bitching and moaning since 2010 and nobody gave a damn. Now MSFT took away the classic client interface, the partners are just NOW realizing the problems with RDLC.

This reaffirms the notion that MSFT should've took away the classic client from NAV2009. All of the feedback would've made NAV2013 a lot better.

Alex_Chow

For the record, I still think RDLC reporting sucks.

mdPartnerNL

Jens M-P wrote:

Going back to a previous post in this thread:

OldNavDog wrote:

One thing I will urge everyone to do with new 2013 databases: Immediately set up a User that has a SPECIFIC Role Center that is NOT the Default Role Center (and preferably one that has a lot of access). That way, at least ONE User will be able to log in if something happens to the Default Role Center, and "fix things".

Just for completeness, then I would like to point out that you can use the following command line options when starting the client:

-disablepersonalization Disables personalization in the client
-profile:name Loads the specified profile
-? Displays the possible options

Thx if this solves "OldNavDog" problem we all benefit. Ranting or complaining with a direct example what doesn't work is NOT wrong.

matttrax

As usual, I'm late to the party. But now I'll go off on one of own rants.

As far as documentation goes, yes, there should be more available. Principle of good design: write the documentation before you even do the development. I'm not saying you can write perfect training material beforehand, but something should be written. You can add screen shots and make it pretty after the fact. This leads to better programming and better software at the end of the day. That said, do I do this? Usually not. Do any of the people in this thread do that? Maybe one or two, but I'm not betting on it. Is it fair to expect Microsoft to do that when we won't even do it ourselves? I don't know, personally I try not to expect more out of others than I would of myself. This approach costs more people and thus more hours overall (spread across multiple people so not more time).

Let's look at the other option: They write the documentation afterwards and release everything together. Now you would have people saying "The product is done, I don't understand why they can't just release a beta and let me play with it. The majority of the application is the same." In this case they are simply trading complaints about time to market with complaints for documentation. This approach takes more time on the actual timeline.

In my opinion it's a no win for them. You have an option that increases cost and an option that increases time. Which one is better? Why is one opinion more valid than one for the other side? Much like US politics, someone will always have something to be upset about. Just like government, NAV cannot be everything to everyone at the same time. A release candidate has good things about it and bad things about it. Every single release is this way. But here's where NAV differs, you don't have to get the new release. You have other options, be it staying as is, upgrading, moving to different software, etc. You make an informed decision about what to do based on what you know. That simply has not changed because NAV moved to a new technology stack.

Maybe it's because I'm still young, I'll only be 30 next month, but I don't mind putting in a few hundred hours to become an expert at something. I'd argue that's a relatively small amount. We have all put thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours into becoming experts at NAV as a whole. And suddenly I'm supposed to be upset because I have to learn something new and invest my time into something that will benefit me for years to come? Because I have an excuse to learn something that has applications to software outside of NAV too, i.e. RDLC and C#? Sorry, not happening. I'll prioritize it along with everything else I have going on in my life, find the right balance between billable/non-billable/family, and get it done.

I'll close on this, and perhaps it's my naivety coming out again, but what happened to that sense of amazement the first time you all sat down and wrote a program and made the computer do what you wanted? Where did that sense of accomplishment go when you learned a new programming language or finished a new type of project? That pride you felt when you figured something out on your own? I haven't lost that, but it seems like the most active users on the forums have. Or maybe they never had it at all. Or maybe it's because these are about the only threads I read anymore . I do this work because I love it, because it challenges me, because I get to learn new things about technology and business, but reading most of the comments it seems like no one else feels the same way. That may not be the actual sentiment, but it is the one that I feel is portrayed. I'm not saying we should all kiss NAV / Microsoft's feet or say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it would be nice to see a thread that actually discusses the merits / pros / cons of everything, with examples, that is going on with these changes instead of what these always turn into: product bashing.

Dave_Cintron

I think this is a bit naive, Matt. NAV was not written in somebody's garage, we're talking about a multi-billion dollar company, a product that boasts over a million users, and hundreds of developers on staff. Not having thorough documentation on the primary report writing tool in this product is not competitive in today's market. Perhaps Windows has few competitors, but NAV has many. Microsoft has always allowed third parties to provide documentation for many of their products, but that is an unworkable policy in this arena. The RTC is a great technical advance, but the report writer has gone from a quick, easy and reliable tool to a slow, difficult and unpredictable challenge. If indeed the Visual Studio environment has integrity it should be easy to document, so why hasn't this been done. Customers have enough to worry about in converting from Classic to RTC without having to pay extra for the time it takes to rewrite custom reports, espeically when they end up with more problems than features. We were told upgrades are supposed to go through 2009 before NAV 7, so we still need documentation on VS 2005 for NAV 2009, not just NAV 2013. This is Microsoft's job to provide.

OldNavDog

deV.ch wrote:

So why are you complaining this late? Such a discusion is imo way too late, the introduction of rdlc was a mess, i agree. But now its here and i think we all should have learned it by now.

So what do you say to the poor NAV developer who just started learning Navision TODAY? How is he "Late to the party"? Are his complaints irrelevant? Where does he go to try and learn 2013 Reporting?

Your argument makes no sense.

OldNavDog

DenSter wrote:

(snip)

NAV 2013 is not even released yet, so in my opinion it is not that strange that the documentation is not there yet. Officially, it is not even a product yet. How do you expect there to be comprehensive help files, training material, design documentation, books by 3rd party authors? If you expect that to be there before the product is even released, you must be living in some fantasy world.

(snip)

Um, I guess you haven't noticed that when a new version of Adobe CS, Adobe Acrobat, MS Office, MS Windows, Apple OS X, Apple iOS, that the very same day you can go to your favorite bookstore and actually find not one, but usually multiple hard-copy books (which take far longer to produce than online docs!) that target the just-released version.

I'll bet you can find books on Windows 8 already!

Yep, a quick trip to Amazon.com in the U.S. revealed PAGES of Windows 8 books, on a WIDE variety of topics (I was actually stunned at how many). How did THOSE come out so fast?

I'll tell you how: Advance information to certain "Partners".

It isn't like MS doesn't make a tidy profit on NAV sales. Heck, I'll bet just the maintenance fees on a couple of hundred NAV installs pays for the entire Development effort for NAV.

So give me a break, please.

OldNavDog

Jens M-P wrote:

Going back to a previous post in this thread:

OldNavDog wrote:

One thing I will urge everyone to do with new 2013 databases: Immediately set up a User that has a SPECIFIC Role Center that is NOT the Default Role Center (and preferably one that has a lot of access). That way, at least ONE User will be able to log in if something happens to the Default Role Center, and "fix things".

Just for completeness, then I would like to point out that you can use the following command line options when starting the client:

-disablepersonalization Disables personalization in the client
-profile:name Loads the specified profile
-? Displays the possible options

EXCELLENT Tip, THANKS!!!

Alex_Chow

OldNavDog wrote:

deV.ch wrote:

So why are you complaining this late? Such a discusion is imo way too late, the introduction of rdlc was a mess, i agree. But now its here and i think we all should have learned it by now.

So what do you say to the poor NAV developer who just started learning Navision TODAY? How is he "Late to the party"? Are his complaints irrelevant? Where does he go to try and learn 2013 Reporting?

Your argument makes no sense.

I think what he meant was for NAV developers that was with NAV before the big transition.

Yes, partners and developers had a chance to make this problem really big, so big that the top dogs notices and act on it. But only a handful of partners and developers raised issues about it. And those that raised the issue were shot down by a majority of the partners that voted to have a better conversion tool than a reporting experience (sorry I still can't get past this...).

So I do agree deV.ch. You're too late to the party. You should've raised hell back in 2009 when it was released.

Alex_Chow

Dave Cintron wrote:

I think this is a bit naive, Matt. NAV was not written in somebody's garage, we're talking about a multi-billion dollar company, a product that boasts over a million users, and hundreds of developers on staff. Not having thorough documentation on the primary report writing tool in this product is not competitive in today's market. Perhaps Windows has few competitors, but NAV has many. Microsoft has always allowed third parties to provide documentation for many of their products, but that is an unworkable policy in this arena. The RTC is a great technical advance, but the report writer has gone from a quick, easy and reliable tool to a slow, difficult and unpredictable challenge. If indeed the Visual Studio environment has integrity it should be easy to document, so why hasn't this been done. Customers have enough to worry about in converting from Classic to RTC without having to pay extra for the time it takes to rewrite custom reports, espeically when they end up with more problems than features. We were told upgrades are supposed to go through 2009 before NAV 7, so we still need documentation on VS 2005 for NAV 2009, not just NAV 2013. This is Microsoft's job to provide.

Very true. I tried to blog as much about reporting as possible. Having worked through RDLC reporting and getting somewhat knowledge in it, it's pretty tough to document the process because it does not make logical sense.

I can create the report exactly how you had it, or even better than how you had it. But I can't explain how I did it.

Dave_Cintron

Two years ago at Directions (2010) a Microsoft speaker complained that only 20% of new implementations were on RTC. I don't know to what degree that has changed but I'm sure this is a big part of why.

matttrax

Dave Cintron wrote:

and hundreds of developers on staff

I don't think the MS NAV team is that high, but perhaps you just mean developers in general for NAV? I could be wrong.

Dave Cintron wrote:

The RTC is a great technical advance, but the report writer has gone from a quick, easy and reliable tool to a slow, difficult and unpredictable challenge. If indeed the Visual Studio environment has integrity it should be easy to document, so why hasn't this been done.

For me at least, I thought when I first learned the NAV reporting tool it was slow, difficult, and unpredictable. Over time, though, I learned all of the intricacies and now I'm really good with it. Is SQL reporting more difficult for me? Absolutely, all I knew was NAV before. But you could probably say the same thing about someone going from SQL to NAV, or NAV to Crystal, or any other combination. I don't think it's so bad that it is unusable like everyone is saying, but maybe I really haven't played with it enough and gotten into enough specifics. I can only state that I haven't seen the problems to the level that others have.

My argument was that people will complain about documentation no matter what / when it is released. There should absolutely be enough documentation out there for a developer to get started and it should be available by the time the product is made available (in my opinion, others will disagree). What there will never be is a magic book to solve every situation someone will encounter. And that's what people make it sound like they want. Just my take on it, though.

OldNavDog wrote:

So what do you say to the poor NAV developer who just started learning Navision TODAY? How is he "Late to the party"? Are his complaints irrelevant? Where does he go to try and learn 2013 Reporting?

There are NAV people younger than me? In all seriousness, though, I would tell that person to begin learning the basics of NAV 2009 and full SSRS. They can then apply that knowledge to NAV 2013. Would you currently have to work harder to learn it since there is no specific NAV 2013 documentation? Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean you have to sit and twiddle your thumbs. Should that documentation already exist? Yeah, but it doesn't yet, so you work with what you have.

OldNavDog wrote:

Yep, a quick trip to Amazon.com in the U.S. revealed PAGES of Windows 8 books, on a WIDE variety of topics (I was actually stunned at how many). How did THOSE come out so fast? I'll tell you how: Advance information to certain "Partners".

That's because there's money to be made there. There's no money in writing a book on NAV. A Windows 8 book probably makes more in royalties in a week than all of the Packt NAV books have made in their lifetime. Ok, stretching a little, but not much. I mean just think about it. What's going to sell more? A book that will have hundreds of millions of potential users, or one that only a few thousand even know the programming language? When you have a limited audience, and an even more limited set of potential authors, you can't be surprised that there's not much out there, especially at the new product release.

OldNavDog

DenSter wrote:

And don't say there is 'zero documentation' because that is just not true. Granted, it's in the typically obscure and hard to find manner that we're used to, but there is a ton of material out there.

Citations, please. I would think that if you could've "shut me up" with a mouthful of links, you would have.

But you have not. So, "Links or it doesn't exist".

And besides, please tell me why it's acceptable to have "obscure and hard to find" documentation?!? This isn't supposed to be a treasure-hunt...

Alex_Chow

I think Daniel is referring to this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 7(v=nav.70)?lc=1033

But it doesn't have anything on reporting...

OldNavDog

Alex Chow wrote:

Having worked through RDLC reporting and getting somewhat knowledge in it, it's pretty tough to document the process because it does not make logical sense.

I can create the report exactly how you had it, or even better than how you had it. But I can't explain how I did it.

That's actually a terrifying statement; because it speaks volumes about there being some fundamental design flaws in the entire RDLC process.

And it also doesn't bode well at all for ever getting useful documentation.

OldNavDog

Alex Chow wrote:

I think Daniel is referring to this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 7(v=nav.70)?lc=1033

But it doesn't have anything on reporting...

Thank you for making my point for me!

matttrax

How about MSDN?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 70%29.aspx

DenSter

OldNavDog wrote:

Citations, please. I would think that if you could've "shut me up" with a mouthful of links, you would have.

But you have not. So, "Links or it doesn't exist".

I have no intention to shut you up at all, and I am not going to do your searching for you.

Nice try with the invalid arguments though, that's quality debate team stuff :thumbsup:

OldNavDog

matttrax wrote:

How about MSDN?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 70%29.aspx

Thanks for the Link. Been there. Considering this is RDLC we're talking about, this is about 1/10 that needs to be there, at a bare minimum.

And although it looks like there's quite a bit of stuff here, it's actually pretty content-free, once you get into really tying to do any sort of "real" RDLC Report Design.

And I hear today that the U.S. 2013 RTM version is available on PartnerSource; so I'll know tomorrow if the Help Files have gotten more accurate regarding Reporting since the 2013 Beta...