[Introducing the new JIRA]

The under-the-hood and backend changes are great. Anything to make the JIRA more efficient is awesome.

But ... why does there always have to be a string of "buts" regarding frivolous items?

"Released" is now "resolved?" Really? What IS is with you people and changing things that don't need changing? How does "released" make sense with a bug in something that's already released? You don't release a bug, you resolve a bug. You release a bug fix, and just because a fix is in doesn't mean it's been released, does it? Why add confusion to an already fairly complex thing? WHY?

The old JIRA had a very business-like look to it. This looks like ... well, the rest of the web properties. Not business-like. More, social-networky-like, except harder to read. Not everything needs this goofy green and ultra-thin font, you know.

Changed the emails too? Now I get to change my filters? Thanks! Not.

Best of all, my bookmarks to specific issues now take me to ... the dashboard! Very helpful! Especially when the issue I bookmarked isn't on it! Awesome.

I'm NOT A FAN, Yoz. I don't mean you, I think you're alright   ... but these cosmetic changes were unnecessary, and are not an improvement. Can't you guys ever accept that when something isn't broke, you don't need to "fix" it?

[Check here if you want more options]

 

• "You should poll people before doing anything new"

I completely disagree with this, and yes, I know saying that will make me some enemies. The only polling worth anything is true random sampling and that's both expensive and doesn't help with design. Voluntary polls and votes are basically worthless -- they're completely subject to advocacy and gaming.
Without a sample implementation to try out, most people (I didn't say everyone, so please don't accuse me of that.) don't know what they want. The average desired change is usually no change at all. In general, I think we want to try things out in some sort of "real" form, which is what Project Viewers are for.
There are many ideas people have for what would make a better viewer. Some of them come from Lindens, some from residents. Snowstorm is trying to put all these ideas on an equal footing and implement as many as possible, as quickly as possible.

 

This is wrong on a couple of counts.

1. True random sampling is not expensive. You have a company full of coders. Take a couple of them, who are already getting paid by your company, and have them write it up. Send it to a random number of accounts who have logged in in the past month or so. A simple check for auth is all it takes. It will not cost LL one penny more than they're already paying them to do other important things, like "Display Names" and "Invite your friends to SL" widgets.

2. You have no idea that "most people don't know what they want," because you've done no polling on the issue. If "the average desired change is usually no change at all," then obviously Viewer 2 was something desired by LL, and not something desired by its customers, and the feedback since it's release bears that out.

• "Watch what the TPVs do and do that"

TPVs can afford to try partial solutions and see what sticks because they usually address an advanced use case. They can ship buggy, incremental work because their customers know that's what to expect. Our official solutions need to be complete and suitable for all users, including newcomers. (Yes, it's acknowledged that we haven't always succeeded at this, but it is our goal). 
We can learn from popular features in TPVs. But we intend to lead as well with new stuff that's not in the TPVs.
Snowstorm is trying a similar approach to TPVs - and more than just with Project Viewers. Because we make the development builds available, you can try work in progress and see new features take shape. Some features are still half-baked, but you can try them and provide feedback to make them better (which you can't always do with a TPV).

 

I applaud the Snowstorm effort and think it's a good thing to do. But your solutions are NEVER complete, and are are ALWAYS buggy, just like every TPV viewer out there, and just like the TPVs, we know to expect it from LL as well. Every single viewer LL has put out has bugs. Every single viewer LL has put out was not "complete." If they had no bugs and were complete, new versions wouldn't be necessary. And, when the community at large DOES provide feedback on an unwanted-as-is feature in the viewer, you hand us the following:

• "Linden isn't listening now and Display Names is evidence"

I'm not on the Display Names team, so I'm not going to comment on it, except to say that pointing at something and saying "see, it's horrible!" isn't actually very convincing. But this blog post is not the place to have that debate.

You're correct, this isn't the place to have the Display Names debate. This is the place to have the "Linden isn't listening" debate. So, as I believe I brought up earlier in this thread, if you're not going to listen to what we want, why bother giving you the feedback? What good is "working in the open" if no one tunes us in anyway? You're already of the opinion that polling us is useless, we don't want change, we don't know what we want ... please tell us the part that deals with why we should bother?

• "Viewer 2 sucks, throw it out and go back to 1.23"

Well, we've said it before -- we know we missed the mark with some of 2.x -- but it's our base going forward. It's not a complete rewrite as some have indicated -- but it has some major architectural improvements under the covers. I know a lot of people don't like chunks of the UI, but we're going to push forward and fix it, not go backwards to an obsolete platform.

 

While the 1.xx platform is obsolete - the issue is not with the platform, but with the UI. If the 1.xx UI is obsolete, it's only in your own minds; some very popular TPVs still use it as their base, and even with Emerald off the map you're seeing a significant number of customers using TPVs based on the 1.xx UI rather than the 2.xx UI. I see no reason why the functionality of Viewer 2 cannot be applied to a 1.xx-style UI.

[Check here if you want more options]

I think there's been just a tiny bit of confusion ... "going back to 1.23" clearly isn't going to happen, but there's nothing saying that the 1.23 interface can't be applied to the v2.x codebase. The biggest complaint I and everyone else has had, as far as I can tell, is the interface. The features haven't been a problem.

Going back to a v1.23-style interface absolutely can be done.

[Check here if you want more options]

There is no such thing as "too many options."

You need to make decisions based on what existing users do with existing viewers, how existing users set those viewers, and whether most users do or don't do or not do everything that's available.

SL is a virtual world, not a video game. We have artists, business people, teachers, gamers, socialites, builders, machinimists and more, and they all use the same viewer in different ways. To restrict options is to restrict creativity.

Instead of trying to figure all of this out on your own, you should create an extended user survey as ask us. Because we're the ones that use the software day in and day out. We know what we like, what we want and what we don't want - and what we don't comprehend at all. We set our viewers based on what we do and how we do it - and you shouldn't assume that a complex viewer is the antithesis of Resident happiness, unless you've never loaded a copy of Emerald in your life.

Instead of "too many options," you should focus on "how do our customers use the software they're logging on with the most," and emulate that.

[Introducing Kim Salzer, Our New VP Marketing]

Welcome to SL, Kim. I think you will find that a decent percentage of Residents aren't gamers at all - and the creativity comes from many different directions because of that.