LadyDi Andel

Samuel Lindenl wrote: Of course, we continue to smash bugs and make strides in viewer stability and performance, but we figured that you would be much more interested in avatars bouncing and jiggling. Actually, I thnk most of us would prefer that LL fix problems... like group chat lag, sim lag, etc. Once again, LL proves it's more interested in bright shiny objects, rather than the nuts and bolts of improving their system to provide their customers with a better SL experience.

BTW, when googling, this also comes up: ----------------------- LadyDi Andel - Second Life - 7a.org 1 Jul 2008 ... LadyDi Andel - Who, me? Well, I-m just your average -tough old bird-, trying to forage her way through life. More times than not, ... www.7a.org/ladydi-andel.html ---------------------------- Amazingly, not only is the description exactly what's in my SL profile, but when you click on it, it sends you to IMVU. Thank you SL, for another ill-conceived bell and whistle.

I think you need to check the privacy parts. I have "I want my profile to be available on the web" unchecked, yet my profile comes up when googling. I was not logged in anywhere on SL, and even used a different browser to make sure it wasn't cookie related.

Welcome Rod. May the Godesses of Flight, Fancy, and Luck give you the wisdom to wing your way through SL safely, and to steer SL in the direction it desperately needs to go.

Aye, my little furry friend ... I will be watching closely too... and hopefully, get the chance to actually play with it!

Thanks Indigo - either way, it's a good start, and I'm definitely looking forward to playing with meshes!

LadyDi, you can make non-human avatars with the current mesh implementation already Hi Indigo... if you mean the contorting of the current human avatars, yes.. but it doesn't make for awesome non-human avatars. You're still constrained by the basic SL skeleton/shape structure.

Will it be possible, either now or in the future, to directly create avatar meshes (instead of just mesh attachments and alpha skins)? This would make some awesome non-human avatars.

His attitude is fine, it was a sign of honesty, he maybe should have kept it to himself but it's refreshing to see a reaction like that, it shows he's human and it also shows he's not bullshitting us, I'd rather someone was straight like that rather than than talking through the side of their mouth. Please understand, I was not questioning his honesty or anything of the like.. However, when I first read the post, my initial reaction was 'LL took out some options, and now we are going to tell you why', which is typical LL. But his reply that we had 'axes to grind' after asking for our opinions did not settle well. Honest?, no doubt... called for? No. It just reinforced the my feelings that 'LL asks, but doesn't listen'.

We don't want to ignore the changes that customers want, just the opposite: we want to make more customer-requested changes, and faster. Helping QA to be as fast and easy as possible is both a vital part of achieving that, and vital to ensure that changes don't introduce new bugs. Thanks for the reply, Yoz. I would agree with the idea that you present. The problem is that after 2 1/2 years of being on the receiving end of LL's decisions, I have no faith that this will be fact. Even if you do get QA mean and lean, will you still be working on customer requests, or will you be off onto the next 'display names' fiasco, using that as an excuse as to why you can't do customer requests yet? I hate to sound negative, especially as I had such high hopes when I first heard about V2.x, but like the majority of people on this blog, I have lost faith in LL's decion making process, and a few teaks and 'bells and whistles' on the V2.x UI will *not* return that faith. And to be honest, Q's attitude towards us has not made us feel warm and cozy inside.

Q Linden said: There are alternatives to putting more checkboxes on the preferences screen: a) Allow entire user interfaces to be "plugged in". This requires a major architectural change to the software. Although we've talked about it, it's going to be a while yet before we get there. b) Allow options to be controlled close to the point of use. As I said above, this can clutter the interface but can be effective. c) Make an interface that covers all use cases. This is the hardest of all, requiring real understanding and design, but is usually the right answer. a) first, why wasn't this done from the begining? (never mind, I think we all know). But second, why not just bite the bullet and do it now? Most people are not using V2.x now, nor will making little tweaks and making add-on's like display names bring people over to the V2.x UI. b) as stated in other posts above, options are important... The UI doesn't need to be cluttered if simple sub-menu's or 'beginner-intermidate-advanced' options are designed in. c) Sorry, but there is no way for a 'one-UI-fits-all' in SL. It is much too diverse, unless of course, you are trying to turn SL into nothing more than a 3D facebook. A fits-all UI may be fine for database and spreadsheet programs, where there are strict rules applied, but there are basically no rules in SL. It's a constantly growing and changing environment, with many aspects and uses. At least V1.x was usuable by all, albeit cumbersome to some, where the V2.x UI is unusable for many, and cumbersome for most.

Your primary goal should be customer satisfaction, not making code maintenance/testing easier. The former gets a lot easier with the latter. Right now, we're hearing that folks want a lot of code changes to v2, ranging from the behaviour of the sidebar to chat focus to attachment behaviour, etc. etc. etc. Every code change we make needs to go through QA. The easier and more reliably we can QA our code, faster we can iterate, and the lower the probability that those changes will introduce new bugs. This means more responsiveness to customer requests and higher satisfaction. this whole statement seems like a contridiction. Your saying that by ignoring the changes your customers want, it will be quicker and easier to get through QA, and that will mean you being more responsive to your customers... yet how can you be responisive to your customers if your ignoring them in the first place, just so you can make QA quicker and easier??? I am confused.