I know I've been posting like crazy today, but one more quick note.

What was Microsoft thinking when they redesigned their Office suite for 2007? Fortunately, I still have the previous version on my work computer, but co-workers are starting to get Office 2007 as they have their computers replaced or upgraded. Because I'm usually pretty good with computers, people often come to me for quick help questions... and it's absurd how many times I've been asked where something in Word moved to in the 2007 version.

I think this excerpt from an article by Jonathan Blum at CNNMoney.com sums it up:

Microsoft's hard work paid off in many ways: Word 2007 is lovely to look at and use. But Word's 450 million global users can expect major, unwelcome surprises from the new code. Everything you've learned about Word over the years is now wrong. The familiar menu names - File, Edit, View, Insert, Format and the rest - are gone, replaced by cryptic new headers: Home, Insert, Page Layout, and Reference.

And clicking on a header no longer triggers a flurry of pull-down menus. Sure, Microsoft's bloated menus were a design catastrophe, but at least you knew where things were. No more. Now you get a long horizontal bar called "The Ribbon" that holds - no, hides - most Word commands. Although Mac OS X users will find the ribbon familiar, they will have no leg up in battle to learn the new Word: most commands are slightly, but devilishly, different.

-- Microsoft's four-letter #&!? Word by Jonathan Blum

Also, the 2007 versions of Office apps use default file formats that earlier versions can't open. As a result, I have had professors who beg students, "whatever that DOCX file thing is, don't use it -- I can't open it," and work with researchers who have been sharing files by e-mail for years but suddenly can't open each other's work.

Oh, and another thing. We create MS Access databases here that staff at other centers use to collect research data. Access 2007 can open them, but the user has to go through a convoluted process of adding our databases to their "trust center" before any of the code we've included can be run. I suppose that makes it harder to sneak malicious code past the user, but it also makes it VERY difficult for people who aren't good with this stuff to make our code work.

BLARGH!

I know, I've already whined about work once today... but this is absurd. I've been e-mailing with a nurse at another medical center about one of our studies.

For this study, an appointment with the participant includes a breathing test. Because the test equipment is very sensitive, it's commonly understood that it needs to be calibrated (or at least have its calibration checked) daily. We included this in the manual of procedures for the study, but really, it shouldn't even need to be there. This is one of the fundamentals of breathing tests.

Anyway, I got a message from the above mentioned nurse today about some other things, and at the end, she added:

Since we have to travel to other sites more often than not, we can't calibrate the spirometer each day. We'll try to do it when we're in [at our site] but that might not be more than once a week. OK with you?

I promptly replied with this:

Verifying the calibration needs to be done at least once per day that you do a study visit - this is one of the ATS [American Thoracic Society] basic recommendations for pulmonary function testing that we really can't stray from. If you don't do the calibration check, we can't use the data.
-Eric

You'd think that would have settled it, but I got this reply:

It will be extremely cumbersome to carry a [calibration] syringe along with all other equipment. We'll have to think about it.

I just drafted this reply:

I understand that it's cumbersome to carry the syringe. [My co-worker] and I often do study visits in other buildings here at [our medical center], as well as travel to participants' homes for study visits. Wherever we go (be it via foot, car, or plane) we always have to bring the syringe with us and do a calibration check. It's not convenient, but it's crucial that the calibration be done every day, otherwise we won't be able to use the data you collect.

Here are the references from the ATS guidelines:

• "Calibration checks must be undertaken daily, or more frequently, if specified by the manufacturer."
  
• "If equipment is changed or relocated (e.g. industrial surveys), calibration checks and quality-control procedures must be repeated before further testing begins."
  
• "At a minimum, the requirements are as follows: 1) a log of calibration results is maintained..."

(ATS/ERS Task Force: Standardisation of lung function testing. In: Brusasco V, Crapo R, Viegi G. , editors. Eur Respir J. Vol. 26. 2005. pp. 319–338.)
-Eric

I really hope this is settled. The fact that it's in the manual of procedures should have been explanation enough. It's our study, we wrote the protocol, we determine what gets done when to achieve the results we'd like to get. That's how it works!

---

This entry has been viewed times.

I've had my troubles with shipping in the past... I probably even blogged about my most frustrating experience with UPS a few years back*. Lately, however, FedEx has been pretty good to me. Using their online shipping tool is easy, packages get where they're supposed to go, and on time. Very recently, however, I've had two headaches that are shaking my confidence.

First, a package that I sent 2 weeks ago to a major hospital in Denver. Since the hospital is the only thing at this address (and in fact, the only building on the whole block), you can imagine my surprise when I got an e-mail telling me that the package couldn't be delivered because the recipient could not be located. I called FedEx, and they read the delivery address to me. It turns out, the address was correct, but I had abbreviated the name of the hospital (National Jewish Medical and Research Center became "NJMRC"). The rep I spoke with on the phone obnoxiously told me that their driver can not be expected to figure out "obscure abbreviations" but now that they had the full name of the hospital, they could re-attempt the next day.

Second, two packages that I sent yesterday for overnight delivery (today) to a hospital in Florida. I created the shipping labels together on the FedEx web site - the only difference between the two was the box weight/dimensions. This morning, I got 2 e-mails, about 5 minutes apart. The first reported that Box #1 was delivered, and signed for by [Name] at "Receptionist/Front Desk." The second message reported a delivery exception on Box #2 - "Customer not available or business closed." I called FedEx, who confirmed for me that the two boxes were put on the same truck this morning... and that the shipping addresses were identical. Their only explanation was that maybe the driver got confused.

---

*That incident was when I was working for Nokia. I was expecting 3 packages that I needed for an out of town meeting... they were sent to me via priority overnight so I could pick them up before leaving. At about 10 am the online tracking system said "Delivered" but there was no sign of the packages. I ended up leaving town without the packages, and spending 2 days arguing with UPS on the phone. Over and over I would hear: "Good news sir, I just checked the computer and it says that your packages were delivered yesterday morning!" At one point, a rep told me that I should check with the neighbors to see if maybe the package was delivered to them. When I screamed back that I was out of town, and that maybe THEY should go do that, he hung up on me! Eventually, the manager of the Cingular store down the street brought my packages over. He said that when the driver delivered them, he tried to refuse delivery since the address and name didn't match his store, but the driver insisted that because the boxes were marked "NOKIA" they must be for the Cingular store. After spending 2 days on the phone with UPS trying to get the packages picked up, he finally just brought them over himself!