I respectfully disagree.
The beta process is to “work it out.”
I would agree, but that’s not what we’re seeing happen.
I’m all for keeping things constructive and respectful, but trying to only provide positive feedback isn’t going to help the matter.
If Realmac only wants ‘positive’ comments we might as well consider Elements done and put a fork in it.
and thats why your paying and I aint…if it is a good product I will buy otherwise sticking to what ive got…
I point you yo bryanriegers comments above…
I am referring to constructive feedback with positive tone. Not an apologist, but a team member building the next generation of website design apps.
1 Like
and lets take this latest scrolling element as an example…love to see this working on a mobile phone which by the way is how millions of people view the internet nowadays!!!
Wow, you do drink a lot of Kool-Aid! “Keep it positive” = don’t let others know the emperor has no clothes yet.
I’ve tested many beta products over the years. Based on the descriptions above this isn’t anywhere near even a beta 1. If you want to call it an “alpha” then fine.
agree with bryan again!!!1
well said Mathew exactly my thoughts and Bryans too I think.
1 Like
I just consider it respectful human conversation.
It seems to me most of what @Godber and @anon68150607 have written was respectful. They seemed to be pointing out legitimate flaws. What’s not respectful about that? They wrote well and nicely. Clearly they were frustrated … which is understandable given the experiences they described. On the other hand you don’t seem to be “respectful” of their legit experiences.
id would prefer to beta test for free then pay more if the product is good…as I use classic stacks and foundry 3 if I could do 75% of that in one Elements package id be ok with paying a lot more.
ill give an example with founder one of the elements is called alchemy bung a header in it and you have 60-70 different options how this header arrives…fading in, spinning in, drop in from top bottom sides etc etc
Phew, that escalated quickly, let’s try and get back on track!
First of all, I want to say thanks for all the feedback, I hear you and I really do understand your frustration with the beta — I know you guys just want to use it and produce a finished website (but we’re not quite there yet).
I did my best to make it clear on the beta purchase page (and in all the dev diary videos) that the Elements beta is for those that want to support us as a company and get their hands on the product early to help shape it — Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, sorry if that was the case.
We’re going to turn our attention to some of the things that have been brought up in this thread, we’re painfully aware what’s lacking and what needs finishing. As we turn our focus onto these issues and start fixing them up, the product will suddenly become VERY usable - I think suddenly everything will come into focus and we’ll be close to launching that 1.0!
I still believe we’re building something really, really special here, and we’re determined not to fall at the last hurdle. The beta road might be a little bumpy, but the final product will be worth the wait.
Cheers,
Dan
2 Likes
I understand but even the dev diaries are a problem…you show something then in a beta update it’s gone…so anyone watching spends time looking for something that aint there…for example ‘‘sections’’
As we have always made very clear. Elements is in development, it’s not a finished product. We’re changing it based on user feedback to make the product better.
I think it’s very much for the best if you wait for the public release and see if the product fits your needs then.
In the meantime RapidWeaver Classic will continue to work for you.
Thanks for the feedback on all this.
2 Likes
I think it’s important to leave previous posts and videos as they show the progress of Elements, but it’s probably a good idea to let any new ‘beta testers’ know that they are starting on a newer, specific version of the ‘beta’ and that the workflows, features, interface, etc seen in previous Dev Diaries reflect previous versions of the beta, and therefore may be out-of-date.
One thing that might help new users is that when a feature is removed (ie: Sections) is to update those Dev Diaries that do mention it as being out-of-date with regards to specific features, and then point to any new, relevant information.
It might take a little time, but you’ll probably also save a lot of time responding to users confused about why their current version of Elements doesn’t reflect what they’re seeing in the previous Dev Diaries.
id love to know the user that said get rid of sections hahahahahah
They were combined into Containers so much of the functionality overlapped. It was suggested by many that we should make them into one component. So we did.
I was definitely one of those users that said to get rid of sections. They created more confusion in terms of which container elements to use for layout, and the name also collided with the ‘Sections’ group in the elements/components tab.
1 Like
fair play
1 Like