I was anti-no-pawmasher at first. The things that convinced me about no-pawmasher are listed below. Note that no single item convinced me it was time for the change, it was just the accumulation of many points that broke me down.
less mouse travel. the pawmasher was made for touch, and it hurt users on pc/mac
the change in focus of your eye. The pawmasher had large font size changes and button size changes. Although fine in the past (on Sooloos) for a UI that was meant to be used from 3-4 feet away, tablet and phone users tend to hold the device closer to their faces so the change is very jarring.
it was our #1 complaint from trialing users that canceled.
I was convinced of the 1 click play options because I know whatās coming for queue, where destroying the queue becomes a much less important event. It was also a highly requested feature and another item trialing users complained consistantly about.
To call this āchange for changes sakeā is ridiculous.
Would this be some kind of recovery as in your āundoā option but perhaps in another place or something more persistent? How about something closer to the original functionality?
Also, I interface with Roon as much through touch screen (usually some Android device) as a mouse driven computer. You should have gone with your first instinct as the drop down are entirely too small. It is one thing to navigate a seldom used drop down occasionally and have to āconcentrateā, but Play is surely the most used functionality (besides maybe search??) and having it in a non-touch friendly size/design is another strike against this change.
Thatās going to happen a few more times in the futureā¦ for example, we have a whole new UI design coming in the next year or soā¦ while some may consider it change for changes sake, itās an important design change that unifies functionality on less wide screens (phones and portrait tablets).
We canāt possibly expect to last as a business if we the UI is locked in stone. Itās not like we do this every other release, nor do we do it haphazardly.
The change for the queue makes it so no history is lost ever (within some large reasonable number), yet the experience is not degraded by making you see tons of historical junk all the time. Most people will notice no change, however visitors to the queue screen will find it much much more useful.
The original functionality has not changed. Youāve only gotten more functionality with this latest release. You keep saying this so I clearly donāt understand what it is youāve lost. Is your complaint fully based around the size of the buttons?
ā3. it was our #1 complaint from trialing users that canceled.ā
This actually does not surprise me. Your product is different enough - I have called it an āaudiophileā product but if you donāt like that choose your descriptor - that I can easily see how it would turn off the one-click mp3 pirate generation. After all, they just want to jam man! Albums? So yesterday. Queue, what is a queue?
Have you decided to go for a wider demographic with a simpler (what I have called āsimplisticā) and āintuitiveā (what I have called dumbed down) UI that limits current users such as myself?
Functionality is a much more āorganicā thing than what you are saying here. Yes, by shrinking the size and even making a change at all you have changed functionality. I know this definition is somewhat repugnant to programmers but my personal and business experience says this is so. If I were to move your brake peddle (even by a small amount), and say ābut I have not changed the functionalityā I might be grammatically correct but you would still be ticked off after you wreckedā¦
For me itās not the size of the target but rather the variable positions. Sitting near the middle of a list of tracks itās not clear whether the menu will pop above or below. Seems like a nothing complaint but itās the one I have! Looking forward to being able to use the iPad in portrait mode, and other upcoming changes. I didnāt like the pawmasher at first either soā¦
Thanks for the details on the the thinking behind the changes.
Your argument is getting pretty close to straw man territory with your last post. If your complaint is as you said:
then you canāt also say itās limiting or that somehow only the ādumbā or ārequiring intuitiveā āsimpleā can accept the new position.
If I ignore all your posts except your last one, you have a valid complaint: āRoon changed stuff around and I liked it better before (possibly because Iām used to it)ā. If thatās it, consider your complaint noted and it will be brought up at our semi-weekly ui meetings.
yah, the pawmashers definitely has their advantages - and they were received very poorly too.
Iām surprised how few complaints there are actuallyā¦ if we had never done pawmashers, and instead had the menu from the start, I think there would only be 1 real complaint (the single lost piece of functionality).
Well, your defensive - not that I blame you. Look, you can ignore me (and any other customer) and rationalize that this is inconsequential but moving/changing core fundamental functionality and UI is always going to be problematic.
Part of your problem is your model. You sell more of a subscription/cloud product than software as such, and sell it (and people buy it) because it is always āimprovingā. Your reminding me of some of the advantages (despite all the cons) of a product like Jriver, which allows me to test drive a peddle change and go back to the old model if I prefer.
Oh well, I guess my (and obviously others) concern rises exactly to a Kafkaesque āsemi-weekly ui meetingā! LOL!
Are you paying any attention to how you are coming across? @danny took note of your complaint, the polite response would have been to thank him and move on.
Completely agree, but the flip side is that you are guaranteed significant pushback any time you make a significant UI change to feature(s) used frequently by all or even most users. Thereās always going to be resistance to easily perceptible change, especially in a group thatās, er, centered on an older demographic.
Just play rope-a-dope, continue to make UI improvements, and theyāll tire themselves out.
The risk of destroying the queue becomes greater when āPlay Albumā is actually play a Single. Nothing wrong with new UI but a better safeguard is that āPlay Albumā or āPlay Nowā should mean instant play but track(s) are inserted at front of play queue to replace the current song playing and rest of queue is maintained.
This is the latest in a line of threads recently that convinces me that the Roon forum needs a āDislikeā icon as much as it needs a āLikeā one. An āIgnore Listā for users with āattitudeā would also be of benefit to me (YMMV of course).
Danny
The new UI is excellent. If you as a firm try to please everybody imagine the support costs to your business. The thought of a mass of user configurable options that effectively inhibit change and progress is anathema. Keep the faith. Forums donāt reflect the status quo - just a snap shot of a small sample.
