I wasn’t arguing, I just provided a clear example of a major bug introduced 2 years ago and never fixed impacting 1/4 of my library.
The issues around the burying of features that impacted many of us is something that seems to fall under Roon doing things Roon wants.
I’m being sincere when I say I appreciate you reading the feedback on a Sunday and listening to us. I’m just pointing out examples of where feedback has been provided or could have been provided to save Roon and many of us time and a better experience.
Sorry, I meant “arguing” as “give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view.” and not “exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way”
No, and I didn’t expect it. But the main topic of the thread is whether developers are reading here any my impression is, yes, they read, but once it gets a bit tricky, they simply drop it as the need to “fry bigger fish” by polishing the UI instead of fixing reported bugs. Mostly annoying as I zipped three times in the past my whole library with several gigs of data and managed to send it through without even getting a proper solve of the issues I reported.
1.8 feels like it went a lot beyond “polishing” the UX. It’s a full revamp which took several months’ worth of work by your entire team, seemingly at the expense of putting effort into fixing bugs and improving portions of Roon that were borderline unusable in 1.7 and remain so after the upgrade (just 2 quick examples that come to mind - making tracks match on the album identification screen, or moving around multiple tracks at once in playlists). So while many of us (myself included) are enjoying the massive UX overhaul, we’re also left with the bitter taste that you wrapped a product that it’s still somewhat immature in a prettier package.
I wonder what the reception would have been if you had kept 1.7 largely as it was visually, added portrait mode for tablets as the one big UX improvement, and put more work on some core usability aspects throughout the product.
I haven’t been posting much over the last few days because most of my time has been spent making all this feedback actionable – turning what I’m reading on Community into tickets and specifications that our designers and developers can start on immediately.
Some of the feedback will take time to address, but a number of major feedback points should be resolved in the next week or so. Some of that work was completed late last week, and I’m getting a number of other changes and fixes lined up for the coming week now.
We won’t address every request but we’re absolutely reading it all and we have pretty thick skin, so keep it coming everyone.
To get a better understanding of your „approach“ to address customer needs. Regarding for example the mobile app is lacking cover art in playlists? This is commonly found on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music and many more and useful. Why has this essential element been removed?
Am I the only one who finds these statements contradictory? I am not judging any of those approaches, but they seem to be exclusive. You can either build what you want, or listen to the customers with top priority, can’t you?
Remeber the “old” days of public libraries and the Dewey Decimal System? The big catalog somewhere in the library with little drawers of cards, and the books were classified and subclassified…
Then along came computers. And someone decided that this filing cabinet idea was a good idea. So we got “files”, “folders”. So surely the logical thing was to put the Dewey system on computer? And to give the user an interface they could navigate… first pick the hundreds, then the tens and units… a massive hierarchy of folders you could navigate - open the 200’s then…
That would have probably been what people “wanted”. It wasn’t what they “needed”. Ditto the internet. A couple of students battling to find decent research articles didn’t say “what if we could tag every article we come across? And then find those tags?” or “We should build a massive hierarchy of the internet you can navigate…”. Instead they formed algorithms - how many times articles were cited. And then the articles that cited them, were they cited? And so on. In doing so the “cream floats to the top”. And this is why we have a search engine that most people don’t know there is actually a “page 2” of.
They built what we needed. But not what we “wanted”.
I see roon as the same. They’re building what we need, not what we want. There are plenty examples of software that deliver what people want… packed with settings screens and dialogs of options. Everything you want… there is a feature for that. And they end up looking like a bag of features. roon are taking a more measured response - reading feedback, aggregating it, and understanding the need. So we end up with what we collectively need, but not what we individually wanted.
Sadly we are in an age of “my opinions are my facts”. So we all think we are the most special person on earth.
I know first hand about the struggle that is, and the conflict it can bring when building great software. But also know that in the end the result - if executed well - is worth it.
When Danny says they are building what they want… that was always the premise for roon. It is the essence of how it started. But I do think they are listening to us and will deliver what we need.
I can understand that, but is it possible to have an answer (no matter what) to a simple question like this one that doesn’t seem to me to be a crucial issue for ROON :
Why (technical constraints, dogma, whatever…) can i can completely change the title of an album, its tracks, its primary and secondary artists, its credits, its cover, its recording and release date, its place of recording, its version, its rating, etc. BUT NOT its review and the biography associated with the primary artist of the album? Thanks!
You are twisting my words. I’m not in any way arguing that Roon’s priority isn’t the customer either. I was just asking a question about the two statements from Danny and their logic. I think these statements are contradicting.
They have a vision what they want to build. They listen to what the customer wants, but they still develop what they want. I’m not arguing about that decision at all.
It must be difficult for the development and support team to read everything as there’s so much noise around personal likes and dislikes. The functioning and none functioning aspects of the software seams to be getting lost in all the heat.
I’m pleased with the new UI and all its bells and whistles; its much more up to date.
What we/roon could do with perhaps is an official ‘what’s broken ticket system’ thread so genuine issues can be logged and sifted through calmly and professionally.
@support@danny - what do you think; good/bad idea?
Could you also inform the community what you have picked up thus far as ‘issues to be resolved’ in the next fix?