Hi Jerry,
I've written a blog that covers some of my feelings about this stuff...
Is Comment #3 (What would happen if the folks at Runtime Revolution
read “Getting Real” by 37signals a second time and decided to revamp
their company?) your proposed answer to comment #1 (If I were Kevin and
Mark, I would avoid reading their own Using Revolution list at every
opportunity.)?
I understood your original post to focus on alternative means of
monitoring product feedback. I don't see anything in Comment #3 that
addresses where customer feedback should be received and how it should
be handled.
So I ask:
(a) Should a product's manufacturer provide a mechanism whereby product
users can express their satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and wish list
for new features?
If so:
(b) What mechanism would you propose in place of RR's use-rev list &
Bugzilla?
However, "Due to feature bloat, the software becomes something less
appealing to new users (non-cult members)" from Comment #1 and "Making
simple, elegant software is the first step." from Comment #2 do strike
chords with moi.
My first entry into the winemaking world was a joint venture including
a professor of viticulture at Cal State Fresno and a San
Francisco-based winery supplier. Our original approach was to respond
to every "shortcoming" of the product brought to us by users and
prospective buyers. The winery supplier, who had marketed another wine
production control system previously, was very pleased that our
response to these critiques was "we can add that feature" instead of
"sorry, our software doesn't support that".
So we started out with a design that included two options for recording
wine volumes:
1. Simply enter the volume in a field.
2. Vision a tank as a cylinder with optional top and bottom "cones".
Include the volume of each cone and the unit volume for the cylinder in
each tank's specification. For each bulk wine transaction enter the %
the top/bottom cones containing wine and the height of the wine column
in the cylinder, before & after the transaction, and the volume was
calculated automatically.
First prospective alpha test winery says, "We keep a table for each
unique tank shape, giving the volume for "headspace" (the height of the
wine column in the tank) in one inch increments.
So we add a new volume calc method and a tank shape parameter to the
tank record, a screen to build headspace-to-volume tables, and
transaction fields to capture headspace before & after the transaction.
The next winery says, "Your software measures headspace from the bottom
of the tank to the level of the wine [0=empty tank]; but we measure
headspace from the level of the wine to the top of the tank [0=full
tank]".
So we add a new parameter field to indicate how headspace is measured
and adjust volume calculations accordingly.
The next winery says, "When we calculate volume, we note the wine's
temperature and adjust the volume to a standard of 60 deg F".
So a temperature field is added to the transaction field, and volume
calculations are modified to adjust volume if temp is not empty.
So now we are supporting five different methods of recording volume,
and half or more of the tank record fields are dealing with volume
calculation options...all with the same purpose: recording the volumes
in & out for each transaction.
The final change to volume calculation was to eliminate ALL options
except #1. All tank & transaction fields involved in volume
calculation were removed, leaving "Volume Out" and "Volume In". Our
approach was "We don't care how you arrive at these volumes, just give
us the volumes. For those who feel the need to capture headspace
and/or temperature, put them in the 'Comments' field".
So I understand too well "Due to feature bloat, the software becomes
something less appealing to new users" and "Making simple, elegant
software is the first step."
"2. In this “brave new world” there would be no:
- menu manager
- geometry manager
- debugger
- var watcher
- message watcher
- standalone builder
- pseudo table objects
- application browser
- database access manager"
Sounds quite a bit like MetaCard, no? :{`)
Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
