Dear M, Dear D
Your discussion crossed my long comment on Davids remarks – I didn’t fin here. Did you receive it? I didn’t.
It is quite amusing for me to see an Englishman having problems with American zip code and defending old Europe .
M: as we will continue our comparison study this summer with a female student of a life science curriculum nextby at Swiss Polytechnic Lausanne (the medical faculty of the University is not interested at all…), we are very interested in your criteria. Can I have a look at them? We have listed about 30 criterias, but its all in French.
As we explain in the complete study (in French, we will definitely continue in English), we cannot establish criteria all on our own, we must find a consensus about the whole teaching issue and the subjective observation side, how it is handled in the educational process. I just may recall here that we analysed only the objective criteria of interpreting the fertile window and nothing else; I would say this interpretation issue is only the conditio sine qua non of any app (that interprets, the others do not interest us), but not the sufficient condition of the entire quality of the app.
There is for example a very good app in Germany, mynfp.de, with also some English explanations, that has a very high level of interpretation. It is based on NFP-Sensiplan but has no personal counselling at all. They are agnostics but refer to the Catholic nfp-sensiplan educational material and counselors, they outsource this major aspect. So I think they can be taken as a kind of standard over here together with us.
My point is that we should not spend time and money on rhythm method apps (they all wrongly "predict") or on apps which do not interpret at all. kindara an all other nice apps like infp.de (the app of sensiplan) which do not interpret at all are to put into another category. Otherwise we compare what cannot be compared.
I hope you can follow me on these points