1. I've said this before in another post, but just to keep the point alive: would be really nice to have C# equivelant code where-ever VB.NET code is shown in the documentation.  This makes it much easier to get a handle on the development, since you can just copy and paste code as you are learning the system rather than hand-typing and generating all kinds of dumb typos...

2. Tutorials could use a bit more sprucing up.  For example, it is assumed that a person following the tutorial follows certain naming convention (e.g., txtMyField or cmdMyButton).  I'm used to this from my VFP background, but brand new users may find it a bit hard to follow the tutorials when they name controls something else than is expected, and then the compiler throws all kinds of errors.

3. Would be nice to have a complete class library reference addendum in the end of the documentation.  This way users could quickly look up and learn about any and all SF controls.

That's it for starters.  Maybe others want to pipe in here.  I think the documentation over all is quite good, but it would certainly benefit from a few additional features. 

Speaking of which, do the training videos morph with the program as new things are added and old things changed?  If one buys the video(s), does one get free/discounted updates as the videos are updated to reflect the current state of affairs?

Thanks!

Pertti

Greg:

That's my point about control naming, too.  For example, in one tutorial we are adding buttons and text boxes without explicitly naming them, then in the BO we are referencing them as cmdSearch_Click... etc., which, if you haven't paid attention to the naming and can't decipher the error message generated will stop you in your tracks.  Not a "huge biggie", really, it just generates tech support calls/emails and unnecessary gray hairs and frustration for potential customers.  In my experience especially with tutorials you can never be too explicit, because if an evaluator gets stuck in a tutorial, he/she might just walk away from the entire product, for better or for worse...  The thinking goes something like this: "If I can not get through the @#$%%$ tutorial without a problem, I wonder how many problems I might have working with the actual framework." 

I bet that if/when StrataFrame gets their detailed class library documentation worked out it will help a great deal understanding the moving parts in each class/control.

Pertti