I, like a fair few people here have made X number of feature requests, and while I think this is obviously great for overall development, it may lead to similar requests becoming a bit disjointed - or something like that.
So, just thinking outside the box a little ... how about we build a collection of FR posts that we can all contribute too? That way, we should get more insight into why each request would be useful and how it could be utilised/expanded/developed/tweaked/etc.
I agree with the process of submitting a request, however, I think it would be useful for us to sometimes discuss how a request could be expanded upon. E.g.
- Let's say I ask a question like "Is there a way to include more than just text in X Engage interactions? I'd like to have more control over formatting and insert more than one image ..."
On one hand I'll agree with Simon. I think this could result in richer requirements input and tuning. On the other hand, I can see how having a walled filter can prevent the public development of unreasonable expectations. Imagine once a thread drags on to tune a feature update that those with ownership / contribution to the thread build up an expectation. If this feature didn't make the cut due to feasibility or resource reasons it could be perceived as bad formfor the company to come back and say it's not going to make a future build.
I can see both sides of this coin. A good middle ground would be (and I'd imagine something similar to this potentially exists already) to have a closed communication thread for feature development / exploration for a select group of users (both experienced / sophisticated and non-experienced basic) to help in tuning how a particular feature or requirement shapes up.
My guess is this type of forum won't be encouraged or supported. That doesn't mean that these types of discussions couldn't be carried on in the less topical forums. I think it just means that if supported by the company, these types of discussions don't come without potentially undesirable side effects. My .02c
4 Replies
I agree, like on slide actions for Presenter and annotations for the Video Encoder.
While you may discuss feature requests freely, I would recommend submitting feature requests to us by using our form below:
http://www.articulate.com/support/contact/feature/
I agree with the process of submitting a request, however, I think it would be useful for us to sometimes discuss how a request could be expanded upon. E.g.
- Let's say I ask a question like "Is there a way to include more than just text in X Engage interactions? I'd like to have more control over formatting and insert more than one image ..."
- You reply "Not at present - you might like to submit that as a feature request here: http://www.articulate.com/support/contact/feature/"
Normally I might then go and submit a request, but ... what if:
- I start a thread called "FR: additional formatting in Engage interactions" instead, just to see what other people might like to add
- Person X comes along and adds their bit, followed by Person Y and so on ... also adding how they would see themselves using it
- You and/or the rest of the Articulate team join in
- Several posts later we have a more collective idea of how we might get more functionality out of what would have been only one person's perspective
- I then submit the "final/collective" version as above
IMO it would be useful, especially for those of us that have similar ideas but could do with airing them to see how they can be developed.
On one hand I'll agree with Simon. I think this could result in richer requirements input and tuning. On the other hand, I can see how having a walled filter can prevent the public development of unreasonable expectations. Imagine once a thread drags on to tune a feature update that those with ownership / contribution to the thread build up an expectation. If this feature didn't make the cut due to feasibility or resource reasons it could be perceived as bad formfor the company to come back and say it's not going to make a future build.
I can see both sides of this coin. A good middle ground would be (and I'd imagine something similar to this potentially exists already) to have a closed communication thread for feature development / exploration for a select group of users (both experienced / sophisticated and non-experienced basic) to help in tuning how a particular feature or requirement shapes up.
My guess is this type of forum won't be encouraged or supported. That doesn't mean that these types of discussions couldn't be carried on in the less topical forums. I think it just means that if supported by the company, these types of discussions don't come without potentially undesirable side effects. My .02c
This discussion is closed. You can start a new discussion or contact Articulate Support.