"That looks like a typo." No! I'm actually trying to FAIL the review!

[wct]

@tenizey

I’m saying that they’re a company with their own work processes and no, they don’t owe their customers anything, in theory.

Well, if you want to get theoretical, then they actually do. In economic theory – not to mention in terms of actual, practical law – a contract is an agreement between two parties to codify an exchange of goods or services. Party A gives party B something, and party B gives party A something in exchange. A ‘contract’ where only party A gets something and party B gets nothing in return is not a valid contract (especially not under the law). So, in theory, since we’re paying customers (giving money), we are owed ‘something’ by WK. That’s the theory anyway.

But I’m not actually arguing about theory. Just pointing out that it’s not a good counter-argument to my concern that WK doesn’t pay sufficient attention to customer feedback – and, more generally, to their customer’s user-experience overall, regardless of feedback.

@tenizey

Realistically, even outside of recent updates, that’s how it’s always been.

What about ‘inside’ of recent updates? That’s the context of my post. [Also, what you’re describing sounds like complacency to me.]

@tenizey

… and whether there’s a really angry post of the forums or not, it’s not going to change things one way or the other as history has shown time and time again.

But instead, a topic requesting an “I don’t know” button would be cool.

In the first paragraph, you seem to be saying that customer feedback in the forums won’t change anything. Yet in the second paragraph, you advocate for making feature requests (customer feedback) in the forums. That seems to me to be a contradiction in your assumptions.

Feature requests sometimes work if they’re justifiable and polite (and easy to implement, and make sense to the overlords).

My call for reversion is definitely justifiable, in more ways than one. In particular that this is update is an indication that there’s something fundamentally out-of-whack with their development process – like not doing basic things like releasing things in a beta format first.

Whether it’s politeness that matters? I was polite before, when the kana-only vocab was added and I expressed the same idea that they need to improve their development to avoid releasing changes without beta support or opt-out-ability:

@wct

…
There’s been a big, noticeable difference in the software development methodology being used between WK’s recent changes and BP’s similar recent changes. BunPro has adopted a beta system. They actively solicit customer feedback early, during development, not waiting until virtually the last minute before first release. And they noticeably listen to customer feedback. Sometimes it’s just to say, “Okay, we heard you and will attempt to handle that issue in the future, before final release, but we can’t address it immediately, due to other more urgent priorities. Still, thanks for your input!” But at least they are not seemingly sweeping negative (yet constructive) criticism under the rug, and assuming that, “Well, once we release the first version, folks will see how good a feature it is, and they’ll surely come around over time.”

They also provide advance notice of new features, months in advance – indeed, solicit customer feedback regarding the plans for future developments, and keep us informed about progress as they are developing things.

I could go on and on, but I think that’s enough examples for now. The point is that – as a former software developer myself – I have been consistently impressed by the mature development process the BunPro team have adopted over the years, and by the concrete, user-tested great new innovations and improvements they’ve been making.

I’m just saying that I’m not getting the same vibe from these recent WK changes at all. And I think that’s a shame and a huge missed-opportunity for the WK team to get the same kind of synergistic feedback and communication with their customers as BP has been fostering, as well as the benefits (in terms of app/site stability, customer satisfaction, etc.) as the BP team’s development process has garnered them.

I’m just trying to raise some warning flags before the WK ship starts heading too deep into ice-berg infested waters. “Hey, there are icebergs in that direction, just in case you weren’t aware of that! And there’s a well-charted channel in this nearby direction that will actually get you to your destination faster and safer, by the way. Just sayin’.”

That comment got 62 likes. Well received by the forum-goers, but ultimately – as is evident from this recent change – ignored by WK team, as they don’t even have a system to beta test even small changes like this recent one…

This time, I decided to be a bit harsher. Sometimes changing your approach to things can yield different/better results. Besides, there are additional reasons to take a harsher approach, as I’ve already listed off in comments above.

Nobody in the forums has been harmed by my tone in this post. Nobody at WK either. No one is obligated to read it if they don’t like it.