I am still frustrated that OF does not allow a simple “Move Project to Archive” command. Even when you open the Archive and try to drag+drop a Project, you are apt to end up confused. The sub-Folder structure gets munged and the Project does not appear in the Archive unless you close and re-open it.
The existing Archiving method just does not cut it entirely for my method of keeping records.
When should we expect to have better manual control to manage to move/copy projects or folders between the active and archive databases?
I filed at least one bug report about the flaky behavior of drag+drop archiving between the main and archive database at OF 1.x. I am rather certain that I was rather specific about the bad behavior. I also have already posted a request for project-level archiving.
Maybe I am not posting feature requests (and bug reports) in the right way.
Could you provide some further clarification. To what extent are feature requests run through a popularity contest and have reach a certain threshold to be considered? How much effort does OG put in to reviewing feature requests that seem similar in order to distill an essential, common, feature request? For example, what is the level of consideration given based on the intrinsic merit of a feature, even when only one person asks for it? Also when you say “knowing what customers would like to see …”, how detailed does the request have to be? Do I have to propose a design to implement the feature too, or can I just say “Move a Project to the Archive” (as in this case)?
I don’t know what’s already been suggested so it is difficult to vote. I find myself needing to use the archive more frequently lately, and I find it cumbersome. I still use OF 1 quite a bit (but that’s another topic) but use OF 2 for my archive. I also only keep it on my home desktop, not sure if I can also have an archive copy on my MacBook. I suppose having two archives would present other problems.
My apologies for the delay; I’ve not had a chance to visit the forums in some time!
The popularity of a request is certainly part of what we take into account, when planning updates and features, but it is only one factor. Other factors might include engineering resources (do we have the time, given workload and projects already in progress), data models (does this require changing how we store or sync data), OS level code (is it actually possible, in a way that will be approved by Apple), design considerations (does this fit with our vision for the product), and more.
Part of the process of triaging all bug reports and feature requests is merging items that have root causes, or common methods of implementation. It’s not unusual to find that a teammate has requested something which will do what you’d like, but tagged it in a slightly different way; those requests are then merged into a single request.
You certainly don’t need to propose a design for implementation, but telling us how you’d like to use it can be very helpful. In this case, there would be a significant difference between having a menu command which allows you to archive a given project, versus being able to drag and drop it into your Archive, and have everything filed correctly. The first would likely (I am not an engineer!) be able to (re)use existing code, while the second would probably require writing a new interaction model for dragged and dropped data.
Part of what our support team does when you write in is to channel your request, so we will likely either add it to an open request, or (if nobody has asked before) create a new one. If it’s not clear what you’d like to see, or if we think there’s something similar, then we’ll typically ask for clarification, or see if you’d like to be added to another (similar) request.
And yes… having multiple Archive databases can be problematic, since there’s no way to merge the two, and have everything remain consistent. In this case, it certainly seems like requesting a networked Archive database would be good… and we do have an open request for that, as I’ve voted for it, myself!
Thank you for the detailed response. I will comment on just one part …
What is frustrating is to post an email request for a feature with some implementation details and then to have essentially little or no feedback where that request stands and/or why it never gets implemented. Take your example as a case in point. This is excellent feedback! Why did it take my prodding to “drag” it out by this point in the thread? Why was this response not an immediate one in the forum by an OG rep, e.g.
We at OG agree that a project-level move to archive method is a good idea. The option to do this by using a menu command would be easier for us to implement than an option to drag+drop a project. We have put this request on our “To Consider” list and will update here with further news as it progresses.
IOW, my main request is that OG help us users with clearer feedback about where feature requests stand in the pipeline and/or why certain features may or may not have greater merit. I am not asking for a definitive timeline. I am asking for a bit more transparency to what to me seems to be a black hole where certain features requests go in and unfortunately no news about their merit ever appears back (unless it is dragged out).
Yes, you probably get a ton of feature requests at any given moment. But, so do other software developers. Your work load to manpower ratio cannot be that much different from the average cross-section of software developers. Yet why do I feel in comparison to OG as though I generally get far better responses (and far more ongoing, open discussion) about feature requests from almost every other equivalent-level developer that I deal with?
I certainly understand that being frustrating, especially when some developers expose their requests and bugs in a more public manner. It’s something that we’ve discussed, but improving the products itself has been of higher priority. That’s not to say it won’t happen, just that it hasn’t yet. We’re always trying to improve our process, both internal and external.
The forums have traditionally been an area for customers to help each other (as I’ve seen you helping others; thank you!), while our tech support is all handled via email or phone, with most Twitter contact also funneling one of those two directions.
Because of that concentration on those channels, the forums are not something we check on a frequent basis, though at least one of us is typically here each day. Consequently, it’s not always possible to respond to forum postings quickly, but as time allows, we certainly try.
The irony here is not lost on me, but… I’ll add you to the open request for more transparency… in our development database. I’m always happy to follow up with a customer that has contacted me regarding a feature or bug, to let them know the status, or if there has been any movement on an issue; I suspect that many of my co-workers would be happy to do the same. While it’s not the level of transparency that you are asking for, perhaps it will still be helpful, in the meantime?
Thank you for taking the time, and spending the energy, to not only help other customers, but to drive us to be our best. It is appreciated!
I have noticed what I would characterize as a significant step up in the level of response from OG on the OF forums. It is not lost on me, especially in light of your comments that define the forums as being more user-focused. I might be a bit too brash to assign what I see to what I would say is a corresponding improvement in the focus by OG on better developments with OF. It is as though you all at OG have started coming out of a bad funk from about two years or so ago, and you finally know where the heck you are going.
In any case, I greatly appreciate in return the time you have taken to clarify the situation.