Request For Future Feature Removals

[• Jay •]

I understand that the devs feel some features may be outdated and/or under-utilized, and that their removal is prudent for an overall benefit to the software. However, I think the way those features are removed could be improved in order to minimize blowback with the customer base.

Please consider making official add-ons for features and functionality that is removed in the future. This will allow IPS to get a more accurate assessment of just how much the feature is wanted by the customers, and also provide to customers a clear indication if their favored toy is just not that much of a draw.

Then, if the numbers call for it, decide whether to drop it, maintain it as an official add-on, or integrate it back into the script.

Win/Win, IPS would have cold hard numbers backing up their decisions, and customers would be happy because there would be more transparency in the process and be able to give their members more of a heads up if something that was important to their community was being phased out, or if they'd need to develop their own solution in the future.

[Matt]

Honestly, I don't think it's feasible to put up a poll each time we want to modernise something. People are creatures of habit and generally speaking if you asked someone "Are you Ok with me removing this?" the answer would be 'no!' even if you showed how the new way may be better. Our customer base is pretty large with many different communities so I think agreeing on a single feature set is impossible.

We're never inflexible and we do listen to feedback and we ultimately want good software. We know it won't please everyone which is why we invest a lot of time making sure that its easily extensible for others to fill in the specific needs of others.

Software doesn't work as a democracy. :)

[• Jay •]

Honestly, I don't think it's feasible to put up a poll each time we want to modernise something. People are creatures of habit and generally speaking if you asked someone "Are you Ok with me removing this?" the answer would be 'no!' even if you showed how the new way may be better. Our customer base is pretty large with many different communities so I think agreeing on a single feature set is impossible.

We're never inflexible and we do listen to feedback and we ultimately want good software. We know it won't please everyone which is why we invest a lot of time making sure that its easily extensible for others to fill in the specific needs of others.

Software doesn't work as a democracy. :smile:

Of course software isn't a democracy, Matt. :smile:

As I said, this process would also give administrators more of a heads up on those features being phased out, instead of just suddenly disappearing from the software out of the blue. Then they have to rely on the good will of the contributors to develop an alternative... look at how long some of those alternatives took to create last time.

Deprecation is a widely used method because it works.

[Wolfie]

Please consider making official add-ons for features and functionality that is removed in the future. This will allow IPS to get a more accurate assessment of just how much the feature is wanted by the customers, and also provide to customers a clear indication if their favored toy is just not that much of a draw.

I rather like this idea. Let's say that hooks were provided to let an admin still make use of descriptions and linear+ since they were removed from the core product. Once developed and working, label it as 'EOL' and let someone else continue development from that point.

The trouble would be in deciding what to develop hooks for. Of course, the benefit is that those of us still learning how to do hooks could learn from them.

[Benny.]

what i understand from this topic is the suggestion to give admins back, something thats removed.

this is a great idea il plus 1 it.

after all its been said many times, what one admin wants , another does not, so this would be the easiest way to please all.

as above a win win.

[• Jay •]

Software doesn't work as a democracy. :smile:

Now that I think about this statement, it's a direct contradiction to posts made in the past which allude to requests having the support of other members.

What is a better way to show support for the removal of a feature than the download statistics for the add-on?

How can data possibly be less accurate than speculation?

[Clickfinity]

I think it could be done better next time; I'm thinking in particular about 3.1.4 --> 3.2.0

The communication of removals was done through the various blog entries and spotted around a number of threads during the 3.2 development (which went on for months) - very handy for anyone who followed the development keenly, but not much use for anyone who didn't.

It meant that the "removals / change" list was disparate and anyone coming at 3.2 without reading all the announcements, blog entries, and threads - would be doing so somewhat blindly.

At release / upgrade time it lead to a good number of people rushing back to complain that x, y, and z feature were no longer present - because they hadn't been advised, specifically, before the upgrade, that upgrading to 3.2 would impact on x, y, or z.

A couple of things could have helped:

• A list of removed features/options in the 3.2 release announcement
• A warning in the upgrade routine advising of the changes/differences before you pressed the button - perhaps with a link back to the removals notice in the release announcement
  

I don't think IPS should continue to hold on to (and support) outmoded features, but there is probably more that could be done to better communicate those changes to all of their customer base and not just the ones that regularly participate in the forums here.

Cheers,
Shaun :D

[Richard.C]

I don't think polls for removal of mods is necessary, or even suggested. As you say Matt, people are 'people of habit' and if you ask whether a function should be removed, the answer will always be 'no'.

What is being asked for is more transparency in the process, software needs to evolve and not everyone will like the outcome but to spring surprises on admins is NOT a good thing.

If a function is being removed, then it should be listed as such, you will always get people replying negatively to the removal but at least you are giving an early heads up of the fact.

So providing a list of functions being removed early on could also have positive results as admins and modders would be aware of the situation.

In your announcements you could even advise:

'x' function removed - IPS to provide a hook
'x' function removed - Code to be made available for 3rd party Hook development
'x' function removed - Function can be re-activated via ACP setting
'x' function removed - no planned support (or something like that)

Transparency is what we want.

regards
Richard