Your posts were totally unclear. You went on long disquisitions about aspect ratios, resolution, cropping, aesthetics, which implied the problem was one of design, rather than a bug. I’ve seen this pattern many times in my career, some annoyed user claiming they know better than the developer about design (not just visual design) choices, when the real issue is simply a bug that could be tracked down with well documented examples. That pattern is not productive, as it was once again demonstrated here.
Not only that, I think there was one post where the word condescending was used five times.
I think that’s what you’d describe as “emotionally invested”.
and then peace broke out…NOT.
About 2 years ago I tried to tell Bluesound that they did not discover and decode Tidal MQA correctly… I spent soo much time and gave them examples. It was very, very clear and well documented… but of course they had already claimed that they had full MQA support, which they didn’t… All they did in response to me (and on their forum) was to refuse all I said, and proposing “fixes” that suggested that I did not understand much, and then, big surprise, two releases later the bug was fixed, but never mentioned in the release notes. This is never a good way to deal with customer responses, regardless of the magnitude of the problem… just saying Kudos to @allan2
You are understandably confusing two issues, both of which were covered in my earlier posts. (I agree that the length of my posts did not help; that my posts were not clear; and the distinction may have gotten lost along the way.) The first are the design choices in the Now Playing page, which everyone agrees are just that – design choices – and not a result of a bug.
The second issue is the artist detail page, and the use of text behind photos, which is what this thread is about. My posts were prior to the admission by Brian, after two weeks of repeated posts, that there is a bug in how that page appears. Logically, prior to that admission by Roon, it appeared to be a legitimate design decision.
With regards to the artist detail page, what you recommend is, in point of fact, precisely what a number of users, myself included, tried to do, to no avail.
The entire premise of your post is that if examples are posted, Roon will respond. They did not. You also assume that they will respond, which they did after two weeks, and explain that it is only due to a bug and not a design choice. They did not. Brian directly implied that the worst examples that were posted might be a deliberate design choice.
Even now, no one from Roon has clarified that question. So much for posting examples and getting clarification from management, which is what you yourself say should happen.
You laid out how consumers should interact with a well managed company, and how that company should respond to consumer posts and examples of an issue, as described below:
Consumers provide examples of a problem on the artist details page. In your model, the company promptly responds. Roon did not. Again, in your model, consumers post more examples, and the company then responds. Roon did not. In your model of correct interaction, consumers are then forced to post even more emphatic responses, using even stronger language to describe the issue. You believe that the company finally is forced to respond. Initially, Roon did not do so, but finally did respond. In your model, the company then says it is all due to a bug and will be fixed. Again, Roon emphatically refused to do just that, clearly saying that putting text behind an artist head on the artist detail page is an acceptable design choice, and flatly refused to respond as to whether the incredibly ugly examples that were posted were a deliberate design choice, or a result of the bug. Strongly suggesting it is the former and not the latter.
Roon did not meet the very standard and tests that you posted - at least with regards to how they responded to two weeks of posts on the use of text and photos on the artist detail page.
Are there lessons in all of this for Roon as well as myself? For Roon, it to follow the very model that you laid out. If they had done so, none of this dialogue would have occurred. For myself, shorter posts would be a good idea, since my summary of events may have been a tad long to follow. LOL. And I agree that less passion and more factual explanation would have been a preferable approach.
I agree. My problem was similar.
I understand this could have been frustrating.
I had my arguments with Roon staff (and still having), but my experience is that they are always open to consider that there are bugs, design issues or features that could be better. But for this you need to provide evidence, rigorous test cases, compelling use cases. Push back with facts, logic. No guessing, no judgements, no name calling, no victimisation, which is distracting and unproductive.
They were some mistakes made in Roon 1.6 and they were acknowledged and will be fixed. The product is not « perfect », never will. Everybody has the right to want his feature, or complain about some parts, as long as it is constructive, and aligned with the community’s interest.
The sad part about this commentary is what it took to get Roon to admit that there even was a bug. They ignored the posts and were oblivious to the existence of the bug for almost two weeks. If Roon follows the management example laid out by Fernando in the future, we will all benefit.
My posts were too verbose and had, shall I say, a bit too much passion caused by frustration by the refusal of Roon to clarify if the worst examples are a deliberate design choice or a bug.
But I did at least force the admission that there is a serious bug, and the community benefited from that.
I agree. Signing off for now, and until the next release.
As Simon Ward recommended, time to listen to some music!
Hopefully, users of this forum will not see to many threads like this totally over-verbose variant. It is pure noise and has nothing to do in a forum like this. Why not just pinpoint bugs, errors and wishes in a more non-personal manner? Boring…
So you had your five minutes of anger. For me, v. 1.6 has been a game changer, especially with the inclusion of Qobuz. It works like a charm. Things can be improved further, certainly. But I have seen MUCH worse from companies with MUCH larger development teams. The roon guys are doing a very respectable job IMHO. Rock on!
I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. The latest release is good and works well. It’s too easy to become a moaning whingeing keyboard warrior, but remember naysayers there is nothing out there comparable. In my experience and have been guilty of this, people mostly moan and whine because they are uncomfortable with change. There will never ever be a perfect piece of software simply because the people that make it and use it are also imperfect. The Roon team are working hard and doing all they can to make incremental improvements.
Lol. Seems so. I can’t see what all the fuss is about in all honesty. There’re worse things in the world than adapting to a new look or feel to a beloved bit of software. First world problems really can get taxing it seems!
I work in IT as well. Sadly UI design changes sometimes seem to be made by designers as part of a new release so that it is aesthetically visibly new, not for end user functionality. What may look clean and readable in a small font/graphic on a designers 34” professional monitor is not as clear in a normal setting.
As a lifetime subscriber, I would like to thank Roon management for providing an avenue for customer feedback. Knowing full well that you will get forum loons bombarding your open thread with unreasonable sharpshooting banter. It is important for you to realize that most of us appreciate and respect your professionalism and candor when dealing with unreasonable comments. Keep up the good work as your platform truly is amazing and I believe I speak for a great deal of the community when I say job well done.
Allow me to Vote that sentiment!