There have at each step been a number of alternatives for dealing with quality issues. We (or someone, it was hardly "we") made choices which had consequences. One of the consequences was improved quality. Another was a change in the user's work experience (always a greater constraint, notice, seldom if ever improved user tools.) We are where we are. We can I suppose say it was done the best way possible, and what we have is the inevitable cost of the improvements." I think that's a difficult position to defend. Which is exactly what roger is, intentionally or not, making quite clear. We can't recast the decisions made in the past, but we need to do a better job of learning from them and dong better. Sooner would be nicer than later. Hence rfrank's project.