Roadmap Feedback Form Question

[cberg]

When I preview the Roadmap, some improvements are more interesting than others. However, the feedback section seems skewed toward validating a specific result.  I wondered why the VW Roadmap feedback form does not include a “Not Important” category.

 

Certainly, VW might want to structure the questionnaire to prevent different VW user groups from down-voting topics that may not be relevant.  For example, I do not know what a GDTF file is, nor do I ever generate MVR reports.  This could be solved by asking what version of VW you use or what industry you primarily work in.

 

I am also not sure why you need a name and email to provide feedback.  Often, folks are leery about providing this information. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29 by cberg

[E|FA]

In case you're interested, here's already a thread on this topic.

 

 

[cberg]

@E|FA  Thanks I did not see this. 

 

@E|FA  Thanks, I did not see this. 

 

"Not Important" might be more neutral than a dislike/downvote button.  But it sounds like the VW development team wants us to use the "Nice to Have" category, which seems much less straightforward/honest.  

 

I still think the feedback should be sorted by industry discipline.  That way, VW might see that the modernization of the wall tool, for example, might be more important to its architect users than the implementation of an IFC Construction Classification system.  (Theoretical example)

 

More direct feedback would be especially important in the In Development / Active Research phases. 

It would be useful to periodically get some VW feedback regarding the user-generated responses. "We heard what you said, and we are prioritizing this in our next releases..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ruby S]

Hi @cberg

 

Thanks for your post and your question regarding the public roadmap.

First, I just wanted to point out that you can filter the roadmap cards by industry. Core technology covers areas of functionality that are not industry-specific, like user interface. Hopefully, this will help you navigate and view the information that you’re looking for or that you feel is relevant to you.

 

 

Before I address the voting system question, I think a little background on the public roadmap will help.  The public roadmap is a record of both our short-term and long-term roadmap (reflected by the status of the cards – “scheduled,” “in development,” etc.). The roadmap also reflects all of our industries and all of our markets. A card is added to the public roadmap only after it has been given due diligence and considered for things like usefulness, relevance, and long-term impact on our customers and the development goals of Vectorworks. We make these considerations and decisions based on customer input (through the form of wishes, feedback, etc. – not specifically the voting system), industry trends, and our own internal goals of technology modernization and continuous development. 

So, the roadmap is a place for you to see what we’re working on and what we hope to execute in the short and long term. Therefore, the feedback we seek helps us determine priority, not whether a specific feature or tool should be developed and ultimately implemented or not.

 

Which leads me to the question about the voting system. Perhaps understanding how we use the voting system will give some insight into the language we have chosen for this. This can essentially be thought of as a priority system of 0-3, with 0 being the lowest priority and 3 being the highest. A zero is assigned when there is no vote. If we have a card on the public roadmap that has gotten 0 votes, then it’s automatically placed at the bottom of our priority list. (I can assure you right now, that there is no card on our roadmap that has not received a vote and/or comment).  

 

Lastly, we request names and emails, as our development team will often contact those who leave feedback, and we need learn more or get clarification on their feedback.

 

Your feedback about more communication about what we are prioritizing is heard, and we will work with our teams here to make sure we are doing more to talk about this. 

 

Thanks. I hope this is helpful.

[E|FA]

2 hours ago, Ruby S said:

If we have a card on the public roadmap that has gotten 0 votes, then it’s automatically placed at the bottom of our priority list

@Ruby S Thanks for the explanation.  Can you add the option of adding a comment without recording a vote?  There have been instances of roadmap items that I did not want to vote for, but that I did have constructive comments to make.

[Ruby S]

1 hour ago, E|FA said:

@Ruby S Thanks for the explanation.  Can you add the option of adding a comment without recording a vote?  There have been instances of roadmap items that I did not want to vote for, but that I did have constructive comments to make.

 

Yes, we can absolutely make this change. We are looking to make some changes to this page in the near future and we can include this update. 

Can you give an example of when you wanted to make a comment, but didn't want to vote? I'm assuming you don't want to vote because the card is not a priority for you? 

[E|FA]

6 hours ago, Ruby S said:

 

8 hours ago, E|FA said:

@Ruby S Thanks for the explanation.  Can you add the option of adding a comment without recording a vote?  There have been instances of roadmap items that I did not want to vote for, but that I did have constructive comments to make.

Expand  

 

Yes, we can absolutely make this change. We are looking to make some changes to this page in the near future and we can include this update. 

Can you give an example of when you wanted to make a comment, but didn't want to vote?

 

I can’t remember. 

 

6 hours ago, Ruby S said:

I'm assuming you don't want to vote because the card is not a priority for you? 

Correct

[cberg]

@Ruby S Your explanation is very helpful. 

 

I have often clicked on the cards to read more about a given roadmap topic. Sometimes, I want to provide feedback. However, the feedback section felt less inviting. Now that I understand VW's logic, I might comment on one or two.

 

It would be great if you could link the feedback section to our Forum ID, where most of us have a more established presence. 

[E|FA]

On 8/8/2024 at 12:00 PM, Ruby S said:

Yes, we can absolutely make this change.

@Ruby S I wanted to go back and add comments after seeing the VW 2025 release, but the feature allowing for a comment without a "nice to have" vote still hasn't been implemented.  Do you know if & when this change will be made?

[E|FA]

On 8/8/2024 at 12:00 PM, Ruby S said:

Can you give an example of when you wanted to make a comment, but didn't want to vote?

Vectorworks AI Chat

[Ruby S]

18 hours ago, E|FA said:

@Ruby S I wanted to go back and add comments after seeing the VW 2025 release, but the feature allowing for a comment without a "nice to have" vote still hasn't been implemented.  Do you know if & when this change will be made?

 

Yes, this change will be made, but likely will not get implemented until end of Q1 next year. If our timeline moves up, I'll be sure to let you know. In the mean time, please do, use the "nice to have" as the lowest vote to leave your comment. 

[Matt Overton]

If possible could scheduled cards list a version number for when they are scheduled for?

[E|FA]

On 9/13/2024 at 10:04 AM, Ruby S said:

Yes, this change will be made, but likely will not get implemented until end of Q1 next year. If our timeline moves up, I'll be sure to let you know. In the mean time, please do, use the "nice to have" as the lowest vote to leave your comment. 

Thanks for the update.  My feeling about the "Nice to Have" vote as a proxy for a neutral or negative opinion hasn't changed, so I'll wait until it's been changed.  

[Matt Overton]

Also feedback should flag to the browser it is requesting an email address so the keyboard knows to suggest the right input. Would be great!

[Tom W.]

It would be good if there was some indication as to whether you've already submitted feedback for a particular card or not. It's normally months between visits to the site + I can never remember which I've commented on already. Presumably at the VW end it's not that useful having me say four times how great it would be were point cloud workflows improved when once is enough...