Product Feedback

[Rob Cozens]

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)