Johannes Erdfelt

And I saw no reason to have 3 so I turned it into 2 ways.

You already have the preview option, which is really the way you should be checking for errors, but if you really don't want to use it, you can use the "Go to your message" option.

So I turned the third way, the final success page into something more useful by redirecting you back to where you were.

Stoney

<i>"So I turned the third way, the final success page into something more useful by redirecting you back to where you were."</i>

First, it is not a lot more useful. It isn't at all more useful. It gets in the way.

Besides, if I want to read more messages in the same thread, I have to hit the back button, otherwise the thread tracking reset all the links, so the bold messages become plain text again. By using the back button, I can easily find the messages I haven't read yet. Do you see what I mean here?

Second, you still have all three ways. Except now, one of them is a lot more annoying, can be confusing, and increases your hit count needlessly.

Besides, this is a forum, not a private project. You are better off recognizing what the customer actually uses, not what you wish them to do.

Preview is not used because people are pretty sure they have spelled and written right. They only find problems on viewing the post. Besides, if only 10% of the time I need to edit, it makes no sense to use preview every time, which just ups the hit count. More efficient to simply edit.

Besides, most preview functions (I don't know about here for sure) don't show you the same thing as posting does.

I think you've got your head somewhere wierd about this issue... Nothing you've said about this "improvement" is an actual improvement. Instead, it is frustrating, wasteful, and confusing. So, why not give up, cut out the unnecessary hits, and go back to the old way, as people are asking for?

Or, if you want to simplify, why not eliminate the "success" page and go straight to the new post? That way, we can hit "edit" right away.

(I often use the back button to edit. So the redirect is a double annoyance to me.)

Johannes Erdfelt

If they were, we would be in the pornography business now.

I think you really are looking from this the wrong way. You're looking at from a i'm-used-to-the-way-it-used-to-be-and-i-don't-want-it-to-change way. Whereas I'm trying to look at it from a UI way.

Having three things that do the same thing is dumb, period. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that we are going to go back to how it was.

That isn't to say I'm not open to making further changes to make things even better, but it won't be going back.

Preview is the correct way to view your post. It displays exactly the same way everyone else would see it, but you get the chance to make changes.

Not to mention that you contradicted yourself when you say that people "<i>people are pretty sure they have spelled and written right</i>" whereas you previously claimed that "<i>But, to edit my message, I first need time to read it ... On average, I edit almost once per post.</i>". You can't both be correct but also not be correct.

In fact, if removing the message from the success page encourages people to use the preview function, then I'll probably do that.

It really just looks like that you misused the interface in the past and now that a change was made that makes it more difficult to misuse the interface, you want it to be changed back.

How about you just use the preview function like it was intended and everything will work just fine?

Stoney

Who think they know everything, but have never done an ethnographic study of how people use the interface, or even a simple survey on how users use it or what they want.

If you in fact had customers, that is, people who sign checks to keep you in business, you would understand that good developers don't design for "how it was intended," they design for what people use.

Look, you were the guy who gave us "three ways" to preview our messages. The only rational reason to have done that is to allow users to find their favorite way. You would then discover how users used the software, and build around that. But, if you make a mistake and give us three ways when you really didn't want us to use our favorite way, and so you ignore the feedback, well... that is TWO mistakes on your part.

When you find out that users use the software differently than you intended when you thought it up in a vacuum all by yourself, then that is called "market research data." What you call "the way it was intended" is called "an old idea". When a programmer gets stubborn about it, that is what gets them fired from the product development team.

We ARE your customers. We give you information, upload images, refer friends, provide the "eyes" so that you can sell advertising, and create a community around your website. Communities take the site away from its creators, like it or not. That is how the business model works.

I feel like you have missed everything I've said. You seem to have a very narrow slit through which information can pass, and only then does it pass if you think you can twist it around to argue against the honest feedback.

And, no, I didn't contradict myself. It is both true that most people are pretty sure that they have spelled everything right when they post, AND that they probably did not in fact spell everything right. People are human and make mistakes... you are designing for your ideal.

I'm no longer visiting this "feedback" forum. It is a sham, a waste of my time to give feedback and meet this kind of closed-minded resistance and stubbornness. Call it a "pandering for agreement" forum. No wonder those guys started Audizine... I never understood that before (I give them feedback, too, BTW, when their site is clumsy or broken. All in the spirit of participation!).

Johannes Erdfelt

I have really no idea what to say.

Ok, I have one thing to say. You make ENTIRELY too many assumptions.

Like for instance that the UI in this software was designed by me. Take a look at WWWthreads and see for yourself where the design came from.

You'll readily see where the UI started from and that we (not just me or the AudiWorld staff, but the readers too) have made many incremental changes.

I'm not actually sure why I'm defending myself, but here's a quick stab at it.

Take a look at the majority of the feedback forum posts. Do you see all of the suggestions from other readers who actually reason out why they think a change would be good?

Do you see where they actually think in broader terms instead of focusing on one part of a much broader interface? (Well, most of the time)

Do you see where I actually implemented many of those changes?

There's a way to convince me to make changes to the software, and it isn't throwing a temper tantrum.

I suggest you step back and attempt to readjust you perspective on this.

BenM@University Audi

"We ARE your worst nightmare. We regurgitate information, upload ****, refer annoying friends, provide the "spam" so that you can sell advertising, and create a non-stop whine fest around your website. Communities take and take the site away from its creators, until they can't take any more. So they make another site like audizine instead to start the cycle over again. That is how the forum model works."

I guess the "customer" is always right! I have no affiliation with audiworld in any way, but some of you people that use it need to get a GRIP.

Stoney

Try the hypothesis that maybe you did insult me by the dismissive tone. Then read again... you won't be so surprised.

This would be a good point for us to just drop it if you can't manage to acknowledge my point.

Stoney

... about the redirect.

I've been a sysop of a discussion group with 60,000 registered users for 6 years... we're doing fine and are a very tight-knit community. None of the problems you cite.

I also am a valued beta tester of software and interfaces ("most influential beta tester" for one product), and I created some GUIs myself for medical instrumentation. I'm trying to be constructive.

Instead, your message belies or reflects the spite some sysops have for their customers, and probably explains why the reasoning we expressed in disliking the redirects in earlier posts was not read fully.

Given what scum we users are, no point in giving a fair reading to our comments, much less making a thoughtful answer, yes? Might as well be dismissive, yes?