Conference 7.286::dcu

    Has anyone who signed up to be a test site been contacted?
    ed
    

    I got a brief message right after signing up for it, saying thanks for
    offering, we'll be in touch...  Nothing more though...
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

No word yet.

Elaine

I asked Dave Garrod a question about signing up, and in his response, he
said that the current plan is to start the pilot in late December.  He says
that users will be able to download statements into Quicken, do everything
you can with Easytouch, and also write checks electronically (possibly not
on day 1 for the latter feature).

Burns

I reread the mail we each got from Dave Garrod.  We are supposed to hear
something "in November".  My understanding is that the employees are ramping up
on it now, to get ready for us!

Elaine

Gee, I never even heard back.  Wonder if my mail got lost between here and
AOL.

j.

If you believe you sent mail to Dave Garrod about this, but have not heard back
from him, please send me mail, so we can be sure we have the correct address for
you.

Thanks.

Elaine

    that's why I asked if anyone heard anything.  It was my understanding
    that something would happen in november.
    there was no guarentee that one would be taking part in the test. 
    He only notified us that the names were sent on to HQ.
    It would have been nice if HQ had sent us a little note saying
    that we were on/off the list, and this is the plan/dates, etc.
    ed
    

I hope they don't try to contact me during DECUS!

			Steve

    Well, I received a large envelope in the mail from DCU today.  I was a
    little puzzled at first because I wasn't expecting anything, but then I
    felt the floppy inside and I knew what it was.
    
    Rich

    We give feedback back to DCU, but I thought I'd provide some comments
    here and perhaps we may get a better test by comparing notes here.
    
    To top things off, I'll say I'm happy to see a first step toward
    electronic banking.
    
    That said, I'll fire my first shot and say I wished they had not gone
    to building 19 for the software.  I did not get what I expected.  I had
    assumed that the software would work with Quicken to automatically
    reconcile the accounts.
    
    The software was from CFI.  I've never heard about them before.  The
    Quality of the display, as well as documentation provided is mom and
    pop quality.
    
    The instalation was smooth, and it was able to pick my modem and use
    it,
    something other software packages have problems doing.
    
    
    WARNING #1  you are allowed only 10 minutes of connect time.  This is
    probably adequate if you are experienced, but when you are leaning, you
    can, as I did run out of time.  To be fair, there was a countdown
    clock.  But, I did not expect it to pull the plug in the middle of a
    transaction as it did when the time was up.  bad.
    
    WARNING #2  You can have it create a QIF file. DON'T USE IT WITH
    QUCKEN!  I had expected that it validate the transactions I manually
    recorded.  What it did was to create new entries for all the
    transactions, basically duplicating all my entries.  I had to restore
    from backup after it got through.   This was the main feature I was 
    waiting for.  Boy, was I disappointed.
    
    You can do anything you could do with easytouch.  No big deal.
    
    I hope it's not too late to go to QUCIKEN and use their software
    instead of this mom and pop shop.  I certainly hope they didn't spend
    big bucks on this.
    
    ed
    

From:	US1RMC::"kyzivat@kyzivat.ultranet.com" "Paul Kyzivat" 25-NOV-1995 11:03:04.84
To:	dcu-net@dcu.com
CC:	fbedev::kyzivat
Subj:	comments on WinPB

I received the fieldtest version of WinPB on Friday Nov 25.
On Saturday I installed and tried it on W95.

The good news is that I was able to connect, check my balances, and transfer 
funds. Being naturally suspicious, I checked the balances with Easy Touch 
after this and got consistent answers.

The bad news is that WinPB is very poorly constructed and not ready for 
prime time. The following are the problems I observed:

1) SETUP (minor, cosmetic): While it is nice to offer to create a program 
group when there are several icons, it is just silly when there is only one. 
Better to make it clear that there is only one, and allow choice of what 
group to put it in.

2) APPEARANCE & USAGE (serious): In general, it appears that windows 
standards (w3.1 or w95) have not been followed in writing this program. (A 
well written w3.1 program run under W95 will automatically take on the w95 
appearance): 

- In W95, the entry in the Taskbar for Personal Branch is totally blank - 
not very friendly or compatible with W95 style. The toolbar is very clunky 
looking. 

- The size of the font used in window titles and elsewhere differs from the 
default that W95 has been configured to use. 

- There is no menu bar and no control menu or corresponding icon. 

- Window always starts up maximized, even though Icon specifies Normal 
Window (rather than maximized or minimized). The icons in the upper right 
corner approximate the w3.1 standard for minimize and maximize, not those 
for W95.

- This seems to be an MDI application, but it acts oddly. Once a particular 
"document" has been opened it can only be minimized, not closed. Minimized 
documents look like W95 taskbar entries, but don't act like them.

3) SETUP (serious): Setup doesn't provide for modem speeds between 9600 and 
19,200. Connection failed using my Supra V.32bis (14.4) modem at 2400, 9600, 
and at 14400. (The last manually typed into the speed window.) I finally got 
it to work by setting the speed to 9600 and then manually revising the modem 
initialization string to lock the modem speed at 9600. (The modem string 
which worked was: "AT&F2N0S37=9 E0V1M1\r".)

4) ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION (serious): Biggest problem with usage was the 
presentation of the different accounts, for balances, transfers, etc. Only 
the account names are shown, not the share numbers. In my case, I have two 
checking accounts (.5 & .51) both of which are labeled "Checking Accoun". I 
had to guess which account was which by the order in which they are 
presented and the balances they contained. This account names shown should 
include the share number.

5) MULTIPLE ACCOUNT SUPPORT (minor): It is also inconvenient to deal with 
multiple accounts. There is no way to work with multiple accounts in the 
same phone call, which is the same limitation as Easy Touch, but which seems 
silly and inconvenient. It is also inconvenient to deal with different 
accounts in separate phone calls. To do so, one must not specify an account 
number in setup and instead specify one each time connecting.


I understand that DCU did not write this software, but I feel DCU must get 
the vendor to make some major revisions before it is ready for a full 
fledged release. To release the software in anything like its current form 
as a formal rollout would give DCU a bad name. On the other hand, the 
software is still useful in its current state to someone willing to put up 
with some annoyance. I think it would be reasonable to offer this to the 
general user body as beta test software. This would allow all people who are 
interested in home banking to get started without unduly annoying people.

Thanks for the opportunity to try the software. I will continue to report if 
I find other things worthy of reporting, but I wanted to get something in 
quickly for maximum effect.

        Sincerely,
        Paul Kyzivat

    What did you have to do to convince it that you are really you?
    Did it just require the 4 digit code that we use for EasyTouch and
    the bank machines?  I suppose that's reasonable if all you can do
    with it is the same things one can do with EasyTouch.  If one can
    order it to issue checks, however, I wonder if the 4 digit code
    provides enough security.
    
    	Thanks,
    	Larry

    
    
    	I was disappointed in the VT-style interface.  I tried both
    	ZTERM and MacTerminal (both on the Macintosh) and was unable
    	to get in.  I set the terminal to VT100, 8 bits, no parity,
    	1 stop bit, and as soon as it connects and paints a screen,
    	I get a slew of garbage. At this point it will not accept
    	any type of input.
    
    	I was able to get in using a VT100 emulator on my Vaxstation.  
    	I was again disappointed when I went to download some history 
    	data only to find that the only protocols available were YMODEM and
    	XMODEM128.  I'd like to see ZMODEM or at the very least
    	Kermit available.  I'd also be concerned that at a low baud
    	rate, I might not be able to transfer what I want in the
    	10 minutes allowed.
    
    
    	Bill

    There is an implication in the documentation (I have not installed it
    yet, no time) that you can push across account sets (e.g. I could
    transfer FROM my accounts TO the 1xx series (wife, kids, etc) which I
    don't believe you can do with Easy Touch.
    
    Has anyone tried it ?
    

Glad to hear you folks are in there trying it.  I was away for the weekend, and
just picked up my disk, so I'll jump in here later.

I just want to remind you all that this is just a place for discussion.  Please
be sure you forward your comments to DCU via e-mail.

Keep on finding those problems!

Elaine

re: .14
    
>    	I was disappointed in the VT-style interface.  I tried both
>    	ZTERM and MacTerminal (both on the Macintosh) and was unable
>    	to get in.  I set the terminal to VT100, 8 bits, no parity,
>    	1 stop bit, and as soon as it connects and paints a screen,
>    	I get a slew of garbage. At this point it will not accept
>    	any type of input.
>    
>    	I was able to get in using a VT100 emulator on my Vaxstation.  
>    	I was again disappointed when I went to download some history 
>    	data only to find that the only protocols available were YMODEM and
>    	XMODEM128.  I'd like to see ZMODEM or at the very least
>    	Kermit available.  I'd also be concerned that at a low baud
>    	rate, I might not be able to transfer what I want in the
>    	10 minutes allowed.
    
There's a terminal (VT) interface?  The base note gave me the impression
that you needed a PC or Mac (neither of which I have) to use the home
banking stuff.  If I'd known I could use it with my VAXstation I would
have signed up for the trial.

-Hal

There is a VT100-compatible interface - instructions were included.

I too am rather disappointed - I will be sending my comments to DCU. 

As for the Quicken inport, that's pretty much the way it works with other
software that writes QIF files.  You have a choice as to whether to have the
imported records marked as cleared or reconciled.  My biggest gripe is that
the software is brain-damaged in the way it creates the QIF records for
a credit card account (didn't try a checking account) as it puts "Check" and
the reference number in the description field.

It also took me a LONG time to figure out how to export data - I reread the
instructions several times before I realized that the "Export" button doesn't
appear until you select transactions.

The security is no better or worse than with EasyTouch, which requires just
your account number and PIN to allow having a check mailed.

The software seems capable of doing electronic payments, but no details on
that were included with the packet.

					Steve

re .18

> imported records marked as cleared or reconciled.  My biggest gripe is that
> the software is brain-damaged in the way it creates the QIF records for
> a credit card account (didn't try a checking account) as it puts "Check" and
> the reference number in the description field.

I tried the checking account, and it too puts the reference number in the description field.


Rich

    I suggest perhaps that the BOD and DCU go to the QUICKEN WWW page
    to see how electronic/pc banking is supposed to work.
    
    a quick page could be 
    http://www2.qfn/quicken/technical-support/quicken/faq.areas/faqs/on_bk106.html
    [sorry about the over run    .html]
    
    that's part of quicken and explains how the autoreconcil works.
    
    dump cfi!
    note, else where on the page, there is an impressive list of banking
    institutions that use QUICKEN.  and offer it free to members who sign
    up.
    
    ed
    

    I'm guessing, but it looks like that HTTP address should be:
    
    //www2.qfn.com/quicken/technical-support/quicken/faq.areas/faqs/on_bk106.
    html
    
    and not:
    
    //www2.qfn/quicken/technical-support/quicken/faq.areas/faqs/on_bk106.html
    
    -glenn-

    This one is not ready for prime time (or any time).  I'm a Mac user.  I
    did not expect having to use my Kermit to get at the data.  Besides,
    all of the downloading of financial data does not work if you get in
    via a terminal emulation tool.
    
    We need one that provides secure access via the network.  I'd not use
    something that requires me to terminate my PPP session, struggle with a
    cct interface to barely get at half of the data i need.
    
    --svb

    I strongly agree with all the comments about just using Quicken/Intuit
    software.  
    
    I am a Quicken user, but I wonder if the stuff the DCU might get from
    Intuit is specific to Quicken.   Quicken does dominate but one has
    to give some consideration to people who use some other personal
    finance program (Managing Your Money, MS Money, etc) or people
    who don't use any personal finance program but still want to
    do online banking.
    
    I'll see if I can get the question "can non-Quicken users use the
    online stuff Intuit provides?" posted in the CompuServe Intuit forum.
    
    The PC branch stuff is "better than nothing" but for all the reasons
    given, I think we should look for a better solution.   This is
    definitely a "lightweight" version of online banking.
    
    	db

    Oh... one more thing...
    
    I've never understood completely why anyone would choose to import
    their transactions into Quicken but I'm ready to believe I'm missing 
    something.
    
    The reason I enter my transactions are to:
    
    	1) Make sure the bank doesn't make mistakes
    
    	   I always reconciled my checking statements but
    	   until I got Quicken I never bothered with my credit cards.
    	   Interestingly enough, it's the credit cards where I'm finding
    	   "mistakes" on a regular basis.   I found one bogus charge
           (perhaps even a fraudulent use), a mistake in the handling
    	   of a protested charge and a SURPRISING amount of charges
    	   that were never posted to my account.
    
    	2) To see where my money goes.
    
    	   This implies using categories (I would think) and an imported
    	   transaction isn't categorized (is it?)
    
    So the only remaining usage I can imagine is being able to look up
    old transactions by payee: for example, "when did I buy that and what
    did I pay for that?", but not "how much is this car costing me?".
    
    Or perhaps importing can be viewed as "let the bank enter the amount,
    date and payee" and after the import, I'll just do the categorization.
    
    Anyway, I'd like to know why people import transactions in something
    like a checking or credit card account.   I could understand it for
    an investment account or a loan.
    
    	Dave Blickstein
    
    p.s.  The "potentially fraudulent use" I referred to was at a gas
    station.   Two charges for gasoline were made on the same day at
    the same place and I suspect that MY charge card was used to pay
    for someone ELSE's gasoline - either intentionally or accidentally.
    Might want to keep an eye out for that.  I actually found that
    even before I hit the reconcile key.  In reviewing the charges, two
    adjacent gas charges on the same day struck me as very odd (especially
    considering my car gets several hundred miles on a tank).
    	   

    Oh... one MORE thing...
    
    I'd KILL to be able to import transactions in my SAVE account because
    the statements they send are almost worthless.
    
    	db

re: .27

You can be assured that these comments are/will be
considered very carefully. 

Gim (a user of Quicken for Checking and MYM for Investments)

    I agree with all of the comments about this software.
    
    But as someone said, lets not just buy the Intuit software as not
    everyone is using quicken..  I am using MYM.  
    
    FWIW - MYM has the same problems with "import".  It can import, but
    it does not match entries very well.  As a result, I had to go
    back and delete a number of duplicates (luckily, I had only imported a
    few entries to try it out!)  Automated (or even semi-automated) 
    reconciliation would be great.
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    If you followed the WWW links to the banks using QUICKEN, you'll see
    that they offered a startup version FREE to the members that signed up.
    the basic quicken package is not expensive.
    
    any package will be ok with me that can do stuff automatically and
    reduce my time reconcilling the accounts.
    
    even a *better* hardcopy statment from DCU would be better.
    ed
    

As a Quicken user, I'd prefer a direct link to Quicken rather than the
export-import.  But export-import is marginally useful, even though I manually
enter all my transactions (for the reasons Dave gives), as it makes it easier
to see if something is missed.

I've got a shareware QIFIX program that can massage the QIF file to be
more attractive for importing (including automatically assigning categories
for memorized transactions).

				Steve

    I spoke at length with Mychell Touchette who's the DP Operations
    Manager for DCU.
    
    First:  Billpayer is currently FREE to all participants in the
    "DCU PC Branch focus group".   When the testing is done with there
    will be some nominal charge, most likely $3/month for an unlimited
    number of billpayments.   
    
    She also mentioned that you should feel free to add new "vendors".  
    I also specifically asked if a "vendor" could be an individual (like
    a landlord) and the answer was that the DP people say that is possible.
    She'd like to see people testing that so... if you make a regular
    payment to an individual, sign them up as a vendor.  I have no idea
    if they will be contacted or how that works but... it would be
    interesting to find out eh?
    
    Second, while I related (what I surmise to be) the concensus here
    regarding abandoning the CFI software and going with the Intuit
    stuff, her take on things are that they are pretty committed to
    the CFI stuff.  
    
    I was kind of dissappointed with that.  It sorta seems to me that the
    "focus group" is saying "this is no good" and that if they don't act
    on that... what's the point of a focus group (test for bugs I
    guess...).
    
    Apparently the DCU employees using this are happy with it but Mychelle
    pointed out that they may not be as PC-literate as an average DCU
    employee.
    
    Anyway, it seems like PC Branch is a done deal.  Despite that however,
    I think that if you want to see direct access from Quicken you should
    emphasize that in any correspondence you have with DCU.  I'm trying
    to find out if bank customers can access the Intuit-provided online
    stuff thru some other means than Quicken (a communications program,
    or some communication front end).
    
    BTW, I found Mychelle VERY helful, knowledgeable and open to inputs good and
    bad.   But I think if there's any chance at all of scrapping the CFI
    stuff and going with the Intuit stuff, DCU is going to have to here
    MORE feedback from more people that they think that is the way this
    should go.
    
    You can send mail thru dcu-net@dcu.com.  
    
    	db 

    Well, if they're waiting to hear about real bugs, then I've just
    written some mail reporting some.
    
    I used the (big) transfer button on top to transfer money from checking
    to visa.  The balance screen was NOT updated, and I could find no way
    of getting it updated.  I finally hung up, and called again - it did
    NOT show the correct balance. (I verified the balance via easytouch and
    it said that my payment had been made.)  This sounds like serious bugs
    in the backend to me, and that the CFI software needs much more than
    the cosmetic changes that the intro letter said would happen.
    
    I agree that the current .QIF files are useless.

From:	US2RMC::"Gransewicz@aol.com" 30-NOV-1995 02:58:08.66
To:	rowlet::ainsley, molar::delbalso
CC:	
Subj:	DCU Post Request


Bob and/or Jack,

Could you please post this in the DCU notes conference in 
the appropriate topic?

Thanks,
Phil

==========================================================


Subject: PC Home Banking Software Field Test


I have been told that DCU members that agreed to help DCU
test the home banking software have posted their appraisals
in the notes conference.  I'd like to quote from Dave Garrod's
original posting (emphasis added):

   "The plan is to have a pilot test prior to this time with a
    limited number of users to refine the system. We are looking
    for volunteers."        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   "Your responsibility will be to try out the PC Remote Banking
    system and provide your feedback to DCU."
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   "This is a real opportunity to help DCU iron out any kinks in
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    the system before it goes live to the whole membership."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Words cannot express the *disappointment* I feel that people who
agreed to test this software could not simply send their feedback
to DCU so that the issues, comments, problems, etc. could be assessed,
corrected, improved and if necessary, reconsidered.  A major part
of this field test was to prevent exactly the sort of comments that
have now been posted.  While I thank you for participating in this
test and providing feedback, I think you missed this very important
aspect.

I have personally installed and used the software on my home
Windows 95 system.  I sent my feedback to the address provided.
I saw no need to spread my review across the network.  What purpose
would it serve since DCU members will ultimately receive and use
software that will be different based upon the feedback from the
field test?

Please give DCU a fair chance to review and act on the feedback
provided before jumping to any conclusions on any aspect of this
new service.  And could we please try to keep the feedback between
testers and DCU in the future.  I do think that this is a very
important part of the test period and in keeping with the spirit
of Dave's original invitation.


Thanks,
Phil

P.S.
And please, this has nothing to do with "open and honest
communications" or any information protection policy!

=================================================

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA08840; Thu, 30 Nov 95 02:46:11 -050
% Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com by mail11.digital.com; (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA04874; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 02:48:55 -050
% Received: by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04747; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 02:42:52 -0500
% Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 02:42:52 -0500
% From: Gransewicz@aol.com
% Message-Id: <951130024249_120742858@emout06.mail.aol.com>
% To: rowlet::ainsley, molar::delbalso
% Subject: DCU Post Request

Upon receiving the previous post in .-1 from Phil, I was somewhat hesitant
to post it as I was concerned that it would generate a groundswell of
further responses along the lines that this conference _IS_ an appropriate
place for such discussion, etc.

I guess I'd just like to make a couple of simple statements regarding it.

   1) I think you can take .-1 to be Phil's opinion on the matter. Phil
      is as entitled to an opinion as any participant in this forum or
      any member of the DEFCU.

   2) As Phil is _not_ a regular participant here and hasn't access to
      the conference, it probably won't serve much purpose to spend a
      lot of time or energy in here debating Phil's viewpoint.

I will not attempt to stifle any such discussion that does take place
along those lines unless it appears to be getting out of hand, but I
would remind readers that if they wish to take issue with Phil's statement
on any effective level, they might do well to contact Phil directly
by Email to give him an opportunity to both hear your concerns and respond
accordingly.

And, I'm not attempting to "stand up for Phil" in the above suggestions,
either. I just want to try to see that we stay on track with what we can
process in this forum.

Thanks,
-Jack, co-moderator

	I have sent in my comments on the CFI interface. Seeing as this
	app seems to be written in Visual Basic, there is no reason why
	they went out of their way to make it hard to use. VB really
	helps you keep in line with Windows GUI standards. And if it
	IS in face VB-based, there's not much needed to improve it 1000%.

	I too would prefer the direct-thru-Quicken interface, however, I
	understand the needs and desires of the MYM/MS-Money crowd.

	RE: Phils comments

	I'm dissappointed with Phils response. I think what serves the
	membership best in the open communication we are having on this
	subject. I don't think anyone is being critical. I think all/most
	of the comments were/are quite constructive. That's what you
	get when you have a credit union full of enginerds and you hand
	them an uncompleted piece of software. I think that should have
	been expected.

								mike

    I wrote the following to Phil this evening ...  I felt strongly
    motivated ...
    
    -----------------------------------------------
    
From:	CSC32::BROOK        "I am not a man, I AM A FREE NUMBER" 30-NOV-1995 23:34:02.33
To:	US3RMC::"gransewicz@aol.com"
CC:	BROOK
Subj:	DCU PC Banking field test

Phil,

For once, I really have to take issue with you on your comments ...
even though I am not a member of this trial ... I feel a great deal
of appreciation for those people taking part and reporting their findings.

You sound altogether too much like a software company saying "We'd rather you 
didn't discuss the problems you are finding because it might scare our other 
customers"  ... Internally the management description is that the custoemr has 
"a perception problem."

Take the migration of PDP-11s to VAXen many years ago ... salesmen went out
and tried to sell VAXen to inappropriate PDP-11 sites, where clearly the
VAXen were not an appropriate replacement.  The sales perspective appeared to
be that 0ld "perception problem."  Of course the VAX could do the same
job (maybe not as well and costing thousands more ... but then he'd be
running a *VAX* ... not a dying technology. )  Well PDP-11 users stuck to
their guns, and they are still providing me a living now 15 years later.
IF users hadn't got together in DECUS lugs and sigs, it is possible that
the sales folks would have got their way, and Digital would have sold more
inappropriate VAXen, and lost customers and passed away.

Now, DCU is trying the same thing ... This PC Branch software sounds clearly
as if it is not up to the task ... not just cosmetically ... How true this is
I cannot verify ... but it is a perceived problem ... and you know full well
that if there is a perceived problem ... then there is a problem !  If that
weren't the case, Chuckie would still be there and we'd be still knee deep
in user fees.

By informing others who maybe weren't impacted by what was going on, gave you
enough support to fix both real and perceived problems.

That is what is going on here.  If this software is not up to the task,
then I'll continue with easy touch and statements thank you.  I appreciate
these guys warning me right up front .... so that way I will let others
take the strain of fixing the problems.

>   "The plan is to have a pilot test prior to this time with a
>    limited number of users to refine the system. We are looking
>    for volunteers."        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   "Your responsibility will be to try out the PC Remote Banking
>    system and provide your feedback to DCU."
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   "This is a real opportunity to help DCU iron out any kinks in
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    the system before it goes live to the whole membership."
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The members get to check out their director candidates before electing
them and talk to each other about these candidates.  They get to talk
to one another about other services DCU offers ...  Why should they
not talk about this before it is foisted onto the membership as "A GOOD
THING"  (remember how user fees came to be ... a good thing ... the
members didn't get to warn each other about that.

The members WANT TO TELL YOU THAT Management could be easily wasting
members money on a can of worms when there is tried and tested software
already out there.  I call that RESPONSIBLE members.   They would like
other members like me to tell you the same based on their findings.
That is responsibility in democracy in action.

>Please give DCU a fair chance to review and act on the feedback
>provided before jumping to any conclusions on any aspect of this
>new service.  And could we please try to keep the feedback between
>testers and DCU in the future.  I do think that this is a very
>important part of the test period and in keeping with the spirit
>of Dave's original invitation.

DCU has the opportunity now to act on the wishes of the membership ... 
not what it thinks the membership should have ...  YOU know ALL about this
... after all ... that was the intent of electing you guys in the first place!!!

I know that it must be disappointing to see something you've been working
for shot down in this manner ... but please remember that this is EXACTLY
what Chuck and co must have felt ... when they thought they were doing the
best for the membership.

You know that in all our exchanges over the years, I've told it to you
the way I see it ... and this is what I see now ... I can understand how
you feel ... but I think you need to step back and look again at your own
motivation for what you wrote ...  then I think you'll agree with the
membership ... they are doing what you stood for.


Stuart

ps Please note that I intend to post this in the DCU notes conference.


    

    not to go down too much of a rathole, and perhaps the moderators
    may see fit to make a new topic and move the comments there.
    
    when I replied .11, I indicated that we were giving feedback to DCU,
    but I thought it would be helpful to compare notes.  I see the results 
    that got posted as being helpful.
    Something as bad as the bad .qif file that was created should be warned
    in the unlikely event that someone doesn't back up their quciken
    account, that qif file could blow you out of the water totally.
    
    I do see the results of our feedback.  We now have a 15 minute time
    limit vs the former 10 minute.  I don't know if we still get blasted
    out of a transaction in progress at the end of 15 minutes though.
    That would hazve been the most important item to fix [imo].
    
    the feedback from the director makes it seem like this is a done deal.
    I hope I am not right.
    ed
    

>    the feedback from the director makes it seem like this is a done deal.

I don't _think_ that's what Phil was saying at all, Ed. As a matter of fact,
in my reading of his message, I got the sense that he was trying to make
it clear that what people saw in the test software was _NOT_ the final
conclusion that the DEFCU was prepared to draw. Further, he was concerned
that too many folks _might_ get the impression that it's a done deal,
due to the commentary, rather than do to any official word from the
Credit Union itself.

-Jack
   (NOT speaking as co-moderator)

    I'm not sure but perhaps was Ed meant was that the "done deal" was
    "using the CFI stuff instead of Quicken".  Or perhaps he's referring
    to the part of the cover letter that implies that the changes in the
    final version will probably be limited to cosmetic changes.
    
    In any case, I really disagree with Phil's objection to using this
    notesfile.  I think he has interpreted everything in here as a
    "complaint" and an attempt to "fault" the DCU.   
    
    I don't think that's the intention at all.  Phil asked "what purpose
    would it serve"?  
    
    The answer is that that the purpose of discussing these things openly
    is to allow information sharing between the field test participants.  
    There's no better medium for that currently.
    
    This has CLEARLY had benefit both to us and to DCU.  For example, it
    sounded like no one would exercise the "Billpayer" feature until they
    found out (here) that it was FREE to field test participants.
    
    It also allows us to share our impressions of the system and discuss
    ways to further recommend improvements.
    
    Perhaps this could be done in a separate "FT sites only" notesfile
    but I think we're getting valuable input from non-FT participants
    too.
    
    My notes are not a complaint at all.  They are the feedback that the
    DCU is looking for.   I HEARTILY applaud the DCU for getting into the
    online banking area much sooner than most other financial institutions.  
    The DCU is being a leader here, not a follower in an area that is
    important to me.   But you know the old saying how "you can always
    identify the pioneers... they are the ones with the arrows in their
    backs?"
    
    In any case, I don't think anyone's purpose here was to fault the
    DCU for the decisions they've made in this area.   I think we're all
    too grateful for having forward progress.  We're all computer people,
    we understand that sometimes your first path isn't the best one you
    could have chosen.
    
    Put more succinctly:  we are NOT trying to publicly BLAME the DCU for
    picking a system that (we feel) comes up short, we (or at least *I*) 
    am SOLELY trying to get them to abandon this system and go to another
    one.
    
    I am even trying to find out on my own if the Intuit system accomodates
    non-Quicken users, which I see as the only real reason to either have
    both or just the CFI system.  If the Intuit system can be dialed into
    using an ordinary terminal+modem or communications program, than my
    feeling is that it would be wasteful to have BOTH systems.
    
    > I feel that people who agreed to test this software could not simply
    > send their feedback to DCU so that the issues, comments, problems, etc.
    > could be assessed, corrected, improved and if necessary, reconsidered.
    
    One more thing bothered me about Phil's note.  One thing he didn't
    quote was that the cover letter that came with the software strongly
    implied that only cosmetic changes could be made to the BFI software,
    not major functional changes.  I do not think that (as Phil said)
    these things can be "corrected and improved" in the final version
    and the feedback I got from Mychelle was that they were fairly
    committed to the CFI software and thus it doesn't really sound
    like it can be "reconsidered" either.
    
    I'll summarize by saying that while I disagree with his desire to
    remove this discussion from a public forum like this, I would readily
    go along with it so long as another file was created so that FT
    participants could share notes.   I'll even volunteer to host/moderate
    that.
    
    Having the ability to share information about this with other FT
    participants and the DCU itself seems much more important than getting
    additional inputs from non-participants, and so if having this publicly
    is likely to bother the DCU folks, my feeling is to accomodate them
    and NOT engage them in a debate as to whether or not this should be
    public.
    
    	db

If someone sends me (ZKO1-3/H18) a copy of the coverletter that they received
with the Field Test Package, I will scan and post it as data for this
discussion, provided it isn't marked "confidential to DCU" in any manner.

-Jack, co-moderator

    Let me be clear, I don't care who writes the software.  I planned on
    tring MSMONEY as soon as I get all the drivers I need to upgrade to 
    windows 95 on my desktop system at home.
    I want something better than easytouch.  I'd like to be able to have
    the software automatically reconcil my account, allowing me the final
    check.  Somehow each month when I sit down with the statement I know
    there is a better way.
    I had been lobbying many of the old bod members for software to do
    this.  It is unfortunete that Phil views any of my comments as
    complaints.  Pehaps I am not as gifted for words as he is.
    the done deal is reading comments from the directors and what has been
    written here. CFI is it PERIOD.  If they can add the functionality,
    great.  I'd be happy if Phil would have commented on that
    aspect.  Or perhaps our resident new directors.  I have seen the
    improvement in the package as I noted in my last reply.  They are
    listening, but are we limited to the cosmetic improvements, or will
    they also hear our need for funcitonality.
    
    an afterthought, is CFI a real company, or perhaps a package written by
    a DCU employee?  Remember how they designed the glossys before?
    CFI can't be a seasoned windows application writter.
    
    another little project someone should do is answer the question as to
    our PIC.  Is it being transmitted in the clear, or are they encripting
    it.  I think I'd feel a little better with the latter method.
    
    last question:  regarding bill payer.  is there any documentation
    anywhere for this?  I selected the button once, but it was going to
    make me take an oath that I didn't know anything about so I canceled
    the selction and never bothered with it again.
    
    remember test runs out in 15 days.  any idea if we are able to continue
    or are they pulling the plug?
    
    ed
    

>    remember test runs out in 15 days.  any idea if we are able to continue
>    or are they pulling the plug?
    
    Mychelle gave me the impression that they are not "turning the system
    off" on December 15th.   The current idea is that the system is up
    and will remain up right thru to its introduction to the wider
    DCU membership.
    
    However, my hope is that they will take this system DOWN and replace
    it with the Intuit system.   I realize that will incur what is likely
    to be a significant delay in providing online banking but I don't
    want to see the DCU in the position of either having to continue to
    provide the CFI stuff, or having to maintain BOTH systems.
    
    I am, however, utterly convinced that whether they think so now or not,
    they will eventually HAVE to go to the Intuit system.   It's the
    standard that the rest of the world is moving towards.
    
    My hope (and expectation) is that Intuit made it an open interface that
    will allow other personal finance programs (and just generic
    communications software) to be used with it.  But Intuit hasn't
    answered my query yet.  Will check again tonite.
    
    	db

re: .43

>    My hope (and expectation) is that Intuit made it an open interface that
>    will allow other personal finance programs (and just generic
>    communications software) to be used with it.  

Hope is all well and good, but where did you get that expectation?

-Hal

    > Hope is all well and good, but where did you get that expectation?
    
    From the knowledge that Intuit seems to understand the value of Open
    systems.   They created and documented the QIF format, they've
    documented how to produce Quicken "add-ons", etc.
    
    If you're point is that it's not much to go on, then I don't disagree.
    
    ;-()

    I have been communicating off line with a director, and put the pointed
    quesiton:  Are we locked into the deal with cfi.
    
    They didn't know.
    
    I asked the question is CFI a real company.
    
    They thought so.
    
    I think I'm going to scan the internet tonight and see what I can find.
    Given the mix of sotware engineers on the bod, I'm suprised to see
    the 'content' with the package.
    but we stray..
    perhaps we entered this race at the wrong step, although I had been
    stating my desires long before this field test.
    I'd give anything to see how this was presented to the bod.
    ed
    

Below are my comments that I have sent to the DCU.  I included only my
observations and preferences, and did not attempt to describe solutions.
If these folks are experienced, they'll figure things out for themselves
or will go out of business.

I do not care who provides the software: DCU should be leading the industry in
this area.  Further, to ignore the fact that Intuit is the gold standard for
home banking applications would be a pretty short sighted tactic.  I'm sure
that the bod and CFI know better than to ignore the competition and the
membership.  Time will tell.



From:	MRKTNG::SLATER "Marc, DTN 381-2445, ZKO1-3H41  02-Dec-1995 1500"  2-DEC-1995 15:01:23.67
To:	US2RMC::"dcu-net@dcu.com"
CC:	SLATER
Subj:	PC Branch Comments from M. SLater


Installed 11/30/95 onto a 486/66 DX2 PC running Windows 95.  Modem used
was a US Robotics Sportster 28.8.

Installation
------------

1. Another application was running that used CMIDIALOG, so this file could
be installed.  The other application had to be terminated in order to let
the installation continue.

Usage
-----

1. By default the modem speaker was left on.  I prefer to have the modem
speaker turned off at all times.

2. Connection at 19.2 Kbits would not work.  I had to select 9600 in order
to connect.

3. I encountered a General Protection Fault at 

	VBRUN300.DLL at 0023:000001AC

More comments as I delve into it more.

Regards,

Marc Slater

    The DCU folks have asked us not to discuss this here and my personal
    feeling is that we should accomodate that request but... have a
    FT participants only notesfile.  
    
    However I just wanted to briefly state that I got a response from
    Intuit:
    
    You can only use their stuff with Quicken.
    
    I.E. if DCU used the Intuit stuff, there would be no online banking
    available to non-Quicken users.
    
    And yes... I told Intuit that I think they should provide another
    interface that doesn't require Quicken.
    
    	db

    FWIW,  I have created a separate conference for discussing the
    home-banking field test.
    
    I understand that not everyone agrees with the request to take this
    discussion into a members-only conference, and my creation of a
    separate conference is not an "endorsement" of that request nor is
    there any implication that I personally am attempting to stop anyone
    from entering further replies here.
    
    My main interest is to improve relations and communications with the
    DCU with the hope of TOGETHER coming to the right conclusions about
    online banking.
    
    To add the conference to your notebook use this command EXACTLY as
    typed here
    
    		ADD ENTRY  DREGS$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU-ONLINE
    
    Almost everyone on the email distribution list is already a member but
    there were some Internet addresses that I could not translate.  If you
    can't get in, and are a member of the focus group, send me mail.
    
    	Dave Blickstein

re: .49

>    To add the conference to your notebook use this command EXACTLY as
>    typed here
>    
>    		ADD ENTRY  DREGS$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU-ONLINE
    
Dave seems to have forgotten the node name. :-)  Instead of the above,
try:

	ADD ENTRY DREGS::DREGS$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU-ONLINE

Or press Select or KP7 to add it to your notebook.

-Hal

>    The DCU folks have asked us not to discuss this here 

Gosh! The things you miss sometimes! And me a mod of this conference, even,
so I should be aware of what's posted!

Just where, Dave, did the "DCU folks" ask us not to "discuss this here"?



-Jack (sans moderator hat)

    re .51
    
    The field tet participants received email from Dave Garrod asking us
    not to discuss it.
    
    I'm considering whether or not I should set the other replies of mine
    in this string to be hidden.  (This was not requested.)
    
    Rich

    I must say, I would have complied had they given such an indication in
    the begining.
    It seems to me the cat is out of the bag, and all the negative stuff
    has been said.  Now we should be in the period where they are
    considering/correcting all the input.  The replies here should only
    enrich the product.
    I see no purpose in hidding my replies.  That's the kind of 
    communications we worked to get rid of in the past.  
    ed
    

From:	US2RMC::"DGarrod@aol.com"  4-DEC-1995 00:04:51.93
To:	rowlet::ainsley, molar::delbalso, wldbil::kilgore
CC:	
Subj:	Regarding PC online banking beta test

Dear DCU notesfile moderator,

If you feel it is appropriate feel free to post this message to the
DCU notesfile, including this header. The attached explains
why we'd prefer that the beta test is done in a confidential
manner. Obviously once the final software, whatever that may be,
is available to ALL DCU members discussing it publically is a perfectly
appropriate thing to do.

Thanks,

Dave

Subj:	Regarding DCU PC Branch beta testing
Date:	95-12-02 22:46:37 EST
From:	DGarrod
To:	DCU's PC Branch focus group
CC:	Gransewicz, dcu-net@dcu.com

Dear DCU PC Branch focus group member,

Thank you for trying out the beta-test version of the CFI
software.

The reason for sending this message is that it has come to our
attention that there is a very public discussion ongoing
in the DCU notesfile where the flaws in the software, both
real and perceived are being aired.

We would like to strongly request that during this trial period
you send your feedback directly to DCU at dcu-net@dcu.com.
Feel free to copy any or all of the Directors on your feedback
as well. DCU expects you NOT to air your comments
(particularly the negative ones) in the DCU notesfile or any other
public place during this trial period. The reason for this is that
we are concerned that negative comments on the beta-test
version of the software will cause people to write off the final
version without even trying it. Remember only you currently
have access to to the trial software, people reading your comments
do not have access. Therefore your comments can easily allow
people to make incorrect assumptions and set potentially incorrect
expectations.

The purpose of the beta-test is to obtain feedback that can
potentially impact exactly what, when and how the final software
is rolled out. We encourage you to send as much constructive criticism as you
like directly to DCU. You can be assured that
it is being looked at very carefully and will be used by the
management team responsible for Home Banking in the
decision making process. Please don't make their job hard by
setting potentially incorrect perceptions. Remember you are
NOT testing the final product. Your input will be used to decide
exactly what the final product will look like. DCU intends to work
with the vendor to make sure that whatever is finally delivered
meets our membership needs. If this vendor can't meet our
needs DCU always has the choice of looking elsewhere.
Your input to this process is important, but please keep it
between yourself and DCU. The goal of this trial period is
to obtain your input in a CONFIDENTIAL way that will help DCU
achieve a successful rollout of the final product. Please help us
reach that goal.

If you feel that a forum would be useful that ONLY the beta
test participants and DCU can access I would be willing to
make the tester mail distribution list available for anyone that
has the capability and intent to set up such a forum (maybe an
Internet mail list?).

We thank you for your cooperation in this area,

Regards,

Dave Garrod
Secretary DCU Board of Directors

and

Phil Gransewicz
Chairman DCU Board of Directors



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA17531; Sun, 3 Dec 95 23:50:56 -050
% Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com by mail11.digital.com; (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA11928; Sun, 3 Dec 1995 23:50:09 -050
% Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12301; Sun, 3 Dec 1995 23:44:23 -0500
% Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 23:44:23 -0500
% From: DGarrod@aol.com
% Message-Id: <951203234421_43446565@mail04.mail.aol.com>
% To: rowlet::ainsley, molar::delbalso, wldbil::kilgore
% Subject: Regarding PC online banking beta test

I would have to agree that not making known their desire to have commentary
private up front, and attempting to squelch commentary later, is unseemly. 
I thought I recalled a few people being fired from DIGITAL as a result of 
such arbitrary interpretations of policies.

-Jack (sans moderator hat)

re Note 958.49 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN:

>     Almost everyone on the email distribution list is already a member but
>     there were some Internet addresses that I could not translate.  If you
>     can't get in, and are a member of the focus group, send me mail.
  
        If this is an employee-interest conference (as opposed to
        work-related), and it would seem to be, then membership
        should be open to anyone who requests it (and not just
        "members of the focus group"), right?

        Bob

That's certainly my understanding of "the rules".

I've had several mail excahnges with Phil about this matter and have the
first response from him somewhere which he indicated could be posted here ...
I will do so when I find it!

That said, it seems that they thought they said, through the words they used
that the FT was to be done in confidence.

I expressed these opinions to Phil ...

a) this was not evident from the words he posted that he thought implied
	it was in confidence

b) if it was to be done in confidence then the words should have specifically
	said so (and this is probably why the latest mail).

c) it is unreasonable to hide this from the membership at large ... Yes,
	it adds more pressure to correct problems ... but that's the
	business.

d) Phil seemed to feel it uprofessional to discuss the defects in public,
	and threw info about Digital's non-disclosure at me.  My response
	was that there is LOTS of public discussion about the pre-release
	Win95 and Netscape Navigator products .... and this hasn't harmed
	Microsoft or Netscape in the least.

e) Phil seemed to think this discussion could cause irreparable damage to
	DCU.  My reaction was that not responding to it could cause damage.

f) If anything, this attempting to stifle discussion on the product they
	would apparently like to offer us is far more damaging than
	any product defects themselves.  The only thing that would hurt
	DCU would be to NOT do anything about the defects, whether they
	are real or perceived.

Stuart

    > My response was that there is LOTS of public discussion about the
    > pre-release Win95 and Netscape Navigator products .... and this hasn't
    > harmed Microsoft or Netscape in the least.
    
    Well, I don't know about Netscape but I have to strongly disagree
    about Windows 95.   There are LOTS of people holding off on it based
    on things they've heard about the field test.
    
    I'm very busy today and can't do much today, but I wrote a quick note
    off to Phil and Dave asking if it would be acceptable to have the
    conference be "separate" but not "private".
    
    I think that would at least partially address their concerns about
    bad publicity.    I, however, agree with you that no one is going
    to be scared off by this as LONG AS they ADDRESS the concerns.
    
    If they do NOT address the concerns, I'm afraid this will become
    a major fiasco and... I should mention... I'm also concerned that
    they will blame the fiasco (at least partially) on THIS discussion.
    
    One thing I am NOT very willing to compromise on is that I think its
    EXTREMELY valuable for people using this software to be able to share
    notes with each other.   I want SOME kind of forum, public, private,
    e-mail, whatever.
    
    An e-mail list has been suggested instead of a NOTESFILE which
    obviously requires DEC resources.   That's OK with me as well.
    
    	db

    I've been following this discussion as a non-FT-participant and I find
    it disturbing and somewhat comical. 
    
    Apparently, DCU wanted the  FT done in confidence but the participants
    didn't get that message so they 'went public'. Now, it's being cast as
    possibly damaging DCU because the FT participants are finding flaws
    (real or perceived; cosmetic and/or functional) so at least one BOD
    member, who is also the chairman, wants to cease all public
    discussions on this matter. I find this odd in light of the fact that
    this particular BOD member ran on an open communications platform.
    Well, it's too late - the cat's out of the bag and who would've guessed
    it - a piece of field test software has some bugs in it! So let's just
    get past the confidentiality issue since it's moot now anyway and turn
    this into a marketing success. "Our field test participants identified
    key areas for improvement and we've followed up and fixed them!". To
    me, it sounds much better than "Hey, you guys told everybody what was
    wrong and we didn't want you to and you're hurting the credit union and
    now the whole thing won't work and it's your fault!". Of course I'm
    exaggerating (a little) but that's how this seems to be shaking out.
    
    I just find the whole thing so bizarre - there are bigger issues to
    address than letting the members that read this notesfile know about
    these field test issues.
    
    Pat
    
    p.s. I'm forwarding a copy of this to Phil.

>    get past the confidentiality issue since it's moot now anyway and turn
>    this into a marketing success. "Our field test participants identified
>    key areas for improvement and we've followed up and fixed them!". To

I'd like to think that that attitude would prevail, even if not stated so
publicly. The concern I'm reading here, and I have no means by which to
substantiate it as probable, is that the DEFCU may be taking a standpoint
of "The FT participants identified and publicized problems that we haven't
any intention of addressing."

Again, I don't take this latter as fact - I have no way of knowing - but
that's what I'm hearing people express.

    Wow!  Amazing stuff here.  I was a bit upset by the message from Phil
    that was posted earlier, but .54 sounds much more reasonable.  It's a
    pity that the Board's desire for confidential comments wasn't clear (or
    more clear) from the beginning, but these kinds of misunderstandings
    happen.  Recriminations, either to or from Board members, are not
    constructive.  
    
    I'm a bit amazed, though, at the idea that talking about problems
    causes irrepairable harm to the DCU.  First off, the number of
    people who read this notes file simply can't be that big compared
    to the total number of members.  Second, I personally considered
    that issue about a year after Mangone left and decided that on the
    whole it was better to have everything in the open.  I take the
    rather idealistic view that if everything is in the open, people
    will have more trust, and won't let a few criticims scare them.
    I realize that this reasoning doesn't apply to everyone, but I
    think it is likely to apply to many who read this notes file.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

I received a call from Mychelle earlier today and she told me that the problems that I reported
had to do with when I used the system.  From 8-11PM they operate in a "store and forward" mode
for transactions and they are not immediately posted.

I didn't ask, but I think that they are doing backups during this time.

Rich

    	In general it is reasonable to expect that "field tests" are
    run in a fairly confidential manner.  We (Digital) require this of
    our field test sites for many reasons.  On the other hand, once a
    product is out of field test it faces the intense scrutiny of
    notes files such as this one, and in many cases the wrath of
    Internet news groups in very public forums.
    
    	The main difference is public perception.  Surely there are lots
    of problems in field test - that's why they are done.  As long as
    the problems get addressed, the public perception (afterwards) should
    be just fine.  Even when field test is rocky, and news leaks out, the
    perception can be reversed if field test sites praise the
    responsiveness to their complaints.
    
    	I would suggest that while bugs are easy to address, complaints
    of style, naturalness, large pieces of missing functionality, a
    cumbersome interface, etc. are NOT.  And these are the things that
    are most likely to cause lingering perception problems.  If complaints
    during field test are ignored, you can be certain that they will not
    go away, AND there will be tales of "Well, I reported this during field
    test and was ignored...".  Field test is the time to fix problems,
    address concerns, OR decide that a product is not meeting the market
    demands.  Third parties are unlikely to admit to the latter, and
    careful review is mandatory.  From this string of notes, this is
    obviously a very demanding and knowledgeable set of potential
    customers.
    
    	And while I'm not a participant in this field test, I have rather
    a LOT of experience with engineering support of products during many
    of our own field tests.  No one ever said this is easy!
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund                        
    

    
    First of all, I did not sign a non-disclosure agreement, nor was I asked
    to. In any case, I did not send my comments to Bay Bank. The DCU members
    are *not* the competition.

    I wonder if Phil will object to a testimonial of the product... :^)

    If the DCU offers online banking that's wimpy, so what? I mean it will
    be too bad and all that, but are people going to storm to the exits? 
    This is just *not* a big deal. The quality of the software is not half
    as important as DCU's and the BOD's reaction to constructive criticism
    in this forum.

    Eric

Today's WSJ article had an interesting article on home banking by PC.
Some points made:

1.  Intuit's home banking tie is not real time. "... banks only
    transmit the new transactions to Intuit once a day, usually
    in the middle of the night, so the service isn't real-time."
   
    DCU's program is a direct link with its systems. No information
    leaves the DCU to go to Intuit. According to the DCU, the
    information  is real time.

2.  This service (as described in the WSJ) is provided by a
    subsidary of Intuit.  

3.  Reconcilation process is better with Quicken. (I'm not
    surprise since Intuit wrote Quicken.)

4.  It ends by saying, "Don't expect too much from home banking.
    Like most other things about computers, the hype far exceeds
    the reality."


Re: Intuit being "open".  From .48:

    However I just wanted to briefly state that I got a response from
    Intuit: You can only use their stuff with Quicken.
    
    I.E. if DCU used the Intuit stuff, there would be no online banking
    available to non-Quicken users.

Gim

    While the Intuit system isn't "open" (it has to be licensed), Intuit
    has already licensed it to a competiting personal finance program
    called something like Micro$Money.
    
    They didn't say if any of the other "biggies" were going to support
    the Intuit system (like Managing Your Money, and MS Money) but frankly,
    I don't think those other programs have much of a choice.
    
    Intuit got in there first, has the biggest market share and thus
    got a lot of banks to sign up.   It WILL be the standard, I'm just
    about convinced of that.
    
    I just hope Intuit doesn't decide to try and screw the other companies
    by making it difficult or needlessly unprofitable for them to support
    it.   It's not like they don't have nearly total dominance of the
    market already.
    
    	db

    I am not all happy with the comment Made by Dave and I think that 
    he recognized how his "request" would be recieved by saying that 
    this was not a return of the infamous information Protection Policy.
    
    Looks EXACTLY like that to me.  What other information is being 
    held back fot the "protection of the DCU".
    
    
    Sorry but I do not buy this as open and honest communication and am 
    especially disappointed that this has come from Dave.
    
    Maybe we need term limits for the DCU BOD

    I wouldn't be too hard on Dave or any other member of the bod.
    
    FT is a new experience for DCU.  I think we got to FT because we
    had software engs on the bod.  After I got over the inital shock of
    what features it didn't have that I assumed it would have, I began
    to like some of the features.
    
    I think DCU may have been very proud at what they sent us, then perhaps
    shocked at what we thought.  If both groups can back away from
    blame, discontent and hate, and learn from this experince, then only
    good can come.
    
    I hope in the end, DCU invites the field testers to HQ to sit around
    the table and face one another and  talk about not only the product,
    but the process that was used to plan and roll out the product.
    
    we have today a few things we didn't have last year:
    
    o a field test.  dCU just didn't say here it is.  I'm sure they'll be
    cleaning up a lot of the little stuff that was pointed out, in fact
    I've seen evidence of them acting on the feedback and upgrading the
    product already.
    
    o a pc-based product for looking at our accounts.  I think perhaps it
    falls a little short of what is on-line banking, but it is a product
    we can build on.
    
    
    
    Let's work on the product, and the process.  Let's not let a process
    error roadblock the product.
    ed
    

    The idea of a FT is great, but there should also be some type of 
    investigation (survey) of what features are wanted.  Is there an
    ability to do electronic banking with more than one financial
    institution.  American Express has offered to let me download the
    monthly statement into quicken with pre-catorized.  USAA Bank has also
    offered to provide me with electronic banking with Quicken and Bank of
    Boston has telemarketed (sp) me for use of electonic banking using
    Quicken.  
    Don't think that I need real time (others may) or have any need or
    particular desire to have one company provide the back end service but
    I will NOT deal with a different interface with each institution.
    
    Re previous note - that was not meant so much as a criticism of the
    board as it was an expression of disappointment in the actions of one
    individual who I trusted to be open.

Just as a point of order - 

   If I'm not mistaken, it was Phil, in his message, and not Dave, who
   denied that the desire on the part of DCU to keep the FT quiet had
   anything to do with restrictions on open communications or any
   information protection policy.

-Jack

    I managed to misplace Phil's mail with his response to my first message
    to him ... he heard about it and forwarded me another copy ...
    
    -------------------------------
    
From:	SMTP%"Gransewicz@aol.com"  8-DEC-1995 12:42:15.95
To:	brook@buddry.cxo.dec.com
CC:	
Subj:	RE: Your comments re DCU's home banking software


I have been told you might be looking for this...

==========================================

Hi Stuart,

>For once, I really have to take issue with you on your comments ...
>even though I am not a member of this trial ... I feel a great deal
>of appreciation for those people taking part and reporting their
>findings.

I also appreciate people providing their feedback *to DCU*.  That was
the whole purpose of the test.  People were being asked to help DCU
by participating in this test.  Could you please explain to me how
the public discussion of every problem or wart found helps DCU?

>You sound altogether too much like the software engineer
>saying "We'd rather you didn't discuss the problems your are finding
>because it might scare our other suppliers"  ... Internally the
>management description is that the custoemr has a perception problem.

Nobody has ever said peoples feedback was a perception problem.
I don't understand how you arrive at this from what I posted.

>Take the migration of PDP-11s to VAXen many years ago ... salesmen
>went out and tried to sell VAXen to inappropriate PDP-11 sites, where
>clearly the VAXen were not an appropriate replacement.  The sales
>perspective was that the customer had a perception problem.  Of
>course the VAX could do the same job (maybe not as well and costing
>thousands more ... but then he'd be running a *VAX* ... not a dying
>technology. )  Well PDP-11 users stuck to their guns, and they are
>still rpoviding me a living now 15 years later. IF users hadn't got
>together in DECUS lugs and sigs, it is possible that the sales folks
>would have got their way, and Digital would have sold more
>inappropriate VAXen, and lost customers and passed away.

I simply don't see the relationship to the issue I have
which is the public disclosure of reviews of pre-release software
before DCU has had a chance to evaluate the feedback and act on it.

>Now, DCU is trying the same thing ... This PC Branch software sounds
>clearly as if it is not up to the task ... not just cosmetically ...
>How true this is I cannot verify ... but it is a perceived problem
>... and you know full well that if there is a perceived problem ...
>then there is a problem !  If that weren't the case, Chuckie would
>still be there and we'd be still knee deep in user fees.

Well, your paragraph above is a clear example of the point I am trying
to make.  How many other readers now have a negative impression of
something that they have not personally used?  It is exactly what this
test was trying to avoid.  DCU was not given a fair chance to
accumulate the feedback, evaluate it and act.  People now have a
negative impression on a product or service that we may be able to
address before roll out.  I am baffled that software people simply
cannot understand this.  How would you feel if you worked on field test
software that a trade rag got a hold of and tore to shreds before
the engineering team had a chance to polish the final version?

>By informing others who maybe weren't impacted by what was going on,
>gave you enough support to fix both real and perceived problems.

All we needed was the feedback from the testers to DCU in order
to accomplish the task.  That's what I had thought we asked for.
We didn't ask for a public vote.  The people handling this
are intelligent enough to evaluate the feedback and act.

>That is what is going on here.  If this software is not up to the
>task, then I'll continue with easy touch and statements thank you. 
>I appreciate these guys warning me right up front .... so that way
>I will let others take the strain of fixing the problems.

Again, without using the software, you have the impression it is
not up to the task.  It is not billed as an Easy Touch replacement.
It may not have all the functionality right off the bat, but what
first generation product does?  Does that mean we have to wait until
the third generation before we can start enjoying what already is
there?

Also, "warning you" clearly was not part of what was asked of people.
Sigh...

>   "The plan is to have a pilot test prior to this time with a
>    limited number of users to refine the system. We are looking
>    for volunteers."        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   "Your responsibility will be to try out the PC Remote Banking
>    system and provide your feedback to DCU."
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   "This is a real opportunity to help DCU iron out any kinks in
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    the system before it goes live to the whole membership."
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>The members get to check out their director candidates before
>>electing them and talk to each other about these candidates.  They
>>get to talk to one another about other services DCU offers ... 
>>Why should they not talk about this before it is foisted onto the
>>membership as "A GOOD THING"  (remember how user fees came to
>>be ... a good thing ... the members didn't get to warn each other
>>about that.

Now we're "foisting" something on you?  Members have been asking about
this and we wanted to be out in front on it.  Nobody is making you
use it.  Correlating a voluntary leading edge free-service
(an 800 number to boot!) to user fees simply doesn't make sense to me.

>The members WANT TO TELL YOU THAT Management could be easily wasting
>members money on a can of worms when there is tried and tested
>software already out there.  I call that RESPONSIBLE members. 
>They would like other members like me to tell you the same based
>on their findings. That is responsibility in democracy in action.

Don't you understand they could have done that in feedback TO DCU???
Do you think we asked for this feedback so that we could ignore it?
People out there MUST remember that DCU already has DP software and
as we all know, not everything works with everything else.  People may
think choices exist here that do not.  

>Please give DCU a fair chance to review and act on the feedback
>provided before jumping to any conclusions on any aspect of this
>new service.  And could we please try to keep the feedback between
>testers and DCU in the future.  I do think that this is a very
>important part of the test period and in keeping with the spirit
>of Dave's original invitation.
>>
>>DCU has the opportunity now to act on the wishes of the membership
>>...  not what it thinks the membership should have ...  YOU know
>>ALL about this ... after all ... that was the intent of electing
>>you guys in the first place!!!

Stuart, we would have had this without all the public disclosure
on this test.  Private constructive criticism has now turned into
public destructive publicity for DCU.  DCU now has exactly what this
test was trying to prevent.  You need to look at this from DCU's
perspective a bit more.  That is, after all, who the testers were
trying to help.  The feedback to DCU helped, but the public disclosure
before DCU had a chance to even conclude the test and act has hurt
DCU in this effort.

>I know that it must be disappointing to see something you've been
>working for shot down in this manner ... but please remember that
>this is EXACTLY what Chuck and co must have felt ... when they
>thought they were doing the best for the membership.

I don't consider this "shot down" at all.  The test will move forward
and decisions will be made.  I am simply disappointed that some people
couldn't see that they were being asked to help DCU here.  To truly
help DCU, their feedback should have been limited to DCU.  That was
the whole purpose of the test IMO.  You can't help with feedback and
then use that same feedback to taint the new product before we even
have a chance to address the issues found.  Your words above are clear
proof of what I am saying.  And if we completely changed the software,
people will still be left thinking its the old software.  Yet another
unnecessary problem that DCU will be faced with and not what we
expected out of this test period.

>You know that in all our exchanges over the years, I've told it to
>you the way I see it ... and this is what I see now ... I can
>understand how you feel ... but I think you need to step back and
>look again at your own motivation for what you wrote ...  then I
>think you'll agree with the membership ... they are doing what you
>stood for.

I appreciate your candor and hope you appreciate mine too.  I am very
clear in my motivation for asking for private feedback on this test.
This has to do with helping DCU make this rollout as successful as it
can be.  Public disclosure of preliminary testing results flies in
the face of that IMO.  I would take your suggestion to "step back"
and ask that others to STEP FORWARD.  Step forward, OUT OF THE PAST.
DCU is trying to work with members here.  Trying to forge ahead, AS A
TEAM.  We have no intention of wasting members money or foisting
anything on anybody.  We intend to do the very best we can given the
constraints we have to work within.

Regards,
Phil


>ps Please note that I intend to post this in the DCU notes conference.

Please post my response to you as well.

================== RFC 822 Headers ==================
Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV)
	id AA13040; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 11:34:55 -0800
Received: by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16345 for brook@buddry.cxo.dec.com; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:33:39 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:33:39 -0500
From: Gransewicz@aol.com
Message-Id: <951208143338_128395802@emout06.mail.aol.com>
To: brook@buddry.cxo.dec.com
Subject: RE: Your comments re DCU's home banking software
    

    Phil and I did exchange mail subsequent to the response in the previous
    note ... It didn't get very far though.
    
    He seemed focussed on the idea that DCU had asked that the FT be
    confidential and I explained that I couldn't see that in the quoted
    messages ... and that's where the exchange ended.
    
    I have to say, that I least expected this of Phil ... but c'est la
    guerre!
    
    Stuart

re: .72

Thanks for posting that, Stuart.

I sense two misperceptions in Phil's comments -

   1) As Erik Myers aptly pointed out in .65, discussing the FT
      software in this forum is not the same as sending comments
      to Bay Bank. Neither is it the same as a trade rag getting
      the nitty gritty on a FT product prior to release. I find
      it somewhat upsetting that Phil perceives the readership of
      this forum to be as "hostile" an audience as a competitor
      or a publisher. Working as part of a team works both ways.

   2) I truly don't get the sense that Phil seems to as to the extreme
      negative impact and detriment to the DCU that discussion of
      this FT sotware in this forum might have. I think that the
      readership of this forum in general is more than willing to
      go more than half way and give DEFCU the benefit of the doubt and the
      opportunity to demonstrate that they have addressed the problems
      identified in the final release. I simply can't agree that any
      discussion here hurts DCU to the level that Phil perceives.

-Jack

    Exactly what I later tried to explain to Phil ... but he
    wasn't buying it.
    
    What I find so strange is that IF this had been done back in the days
    of the old boards, I would be expect Phil to have been in here swinging
    every bit as hard, if not harder for an open forum.
    
    Of course, people get defensive of their babies ... and I really see
    some of that reaction ...
    

    Bottom line, for me:  Phil's human.  I still opt for openness, once the
    discussion moved into ::DCU.  Imho they would have been within their
    rights to gripe had they been completely explicit as to the place(s)
    they invited response -- they (apparently) weren't.  But as soon as the
    matter came under discussion here, imho more damage can be done to
    DCU's perception as an organization open to discussion & even criticism
    by any proscription of discussion, than would be caused by a poor SW
    release.  Not that I think the damage to DCU's newfound, hard-won great
    rep is severe, by any means.  I also chalk this up to "baby
    defensivity" which does not, I hope, devalue that normal attitude.
    
    I speak as one who has brought a new DIGITAL groupware product out
    before a world-wide audience, which audience has been finding bugs and
    weakly-implemented V1.0 features.  The new style of product support and
    product marketing (that the Web enables) also imho FORCES an openness
    and a dirty-laundry-showing that would have been anathema just a year
    or so back.  It's what is, and we should not only live with it -- we
    MUST make it work for us.  Jmho of course.               
    

    I've placed a copy of the QIFFIX software I referred to (which does
    a fixup pass over a QIF file to add categories from memorized
    transactions and convert to mixed case) in:
    
    	TLE::FORD$:[LIONEL.PUBLIC]QIFFIX.ZIP
    
    This is shareware - the author requests a $10 payment if you keep the
    software.  I haven't actually used this yet, so can't comment on how
    well it works.
    
    Note that it won't help with the way the CFI software sticks unrelated
    fields into the description and may not affect the memo field.
    
    					Steve

    Re .-*, has anyone received any acknowledgement in any form of your
    inputs to DCU?
    
    --svb

    I've received a couple of phone calls, plus a visit by a director (who
    happens to work in the same building).
    
    Rich

    
    I received a phone call from Mychelle, during which she answered a
    specific question I had asked in my feedback message.
    

    
    Is the PC Banking done with an 800#?
    
    

    well, the PC Banking field test is done with an 800 phone number...
    
    

PC Banking will be coming out in February.  However, if you'd like to be on the
list to receive it when it is available, you can call the Info Center.  They are
signing people up now.

Elaine

    And will those of us that are field test users need to re-register, or
    will we automatically be (upgraded? added?) to the list?
    
    Thanks,
    jeff
    

    
    My understanding was that all field test participants will
    automatically receive the new PC Branch package.
    

    Of course another question is will we "automatically" be charged
    for BillPayer or do we need to sign up for that?
    
    I believe the DCU people managing this are dedicated hard-working
    people but the communication with the field test participants could be
    improved significantly.
    
    	db

    
    Someone informed me that the ZKO branch is handing out PC Branch
    packages and signing people up for the service.
    

 I received the software today at the Dascomb Road (Andover Mass) branch.





 Jim (read only)

I've started topic #975 for discussion of the released PC Branch Software.

-Jack
  co-mod