On March 1st, due to the level of concern arising from the initial beta, LL put out a call for feedback in the form of a short survey (now closed). This weekend they provided feedback to those who participated in the survey in the form of a proposal on how the new functionality might be improved and a further request for people’s views on the proposal itself.
The notice of feedback came through a notecard from Brooke Linden which was delivered in-world via Dakota Linden. The notecard reads:
We’d like to thank you for your feedback on the use of the Received Items folder. Based upon the feedback, we have pulled together a similar, but hopefully improved, proposal. Please take a look and provide feedback.
After which there are links to the proposal and an additional survey.
The proposal offers the promise of some improved functionality over the initial beta, including:
- Context-sensitive menus within Received Items that allow you move specific asset types directly to their system folder OR to the Objects folder (so that notecards can be moved directly to the Notecards folder, landmarks directly to the Landmarks folder, etc.), without the need to drag-and-drop manually
- Selecting multiple items (as opposed to folders) within Received Items will display a similar context menu allowing the items to be moved to an appropriate folder or to the Objects folder
- Selecting multiple folders will display a menu presenting options to move the folders either to the Objects folder or you MY INVENTORY root folder
- The promise to “fix” current issue around offline delivery problems through the use of the Received Items folder.
There are a number of other changes outlined, some of which LL are requesting specific feedback against (for example: they are proposing capping the number of items a resident can receive in an hour to prevent the system being used for griefing, and they are looking for suggestions as to a reasonable number at which to cap hourly deliveries), as well as instigating measure that are presumably aimed at getting people to manage Received Items: such as blocking the ability to rez items directly from the panel (which may actually become a floater in its own right).
Overall, the proposal is a step forward compared to the initial beta system, but it is unlikely to address all concerns – which is why open feedback via the JIRA and on blogs / the SL forum relating to specific concerns remains important. However, what is being offered in terms of context menus, the ability to search (and hopefully sort) Received Items does make the idea something of a stronger offering, and if the system does solve issues around failed deliveries, etc., then that alone might well outweigh some of the shortcoming people might otherwise feel the system has – although there are still potential problems that need to be addressed.
It will be interesting to see how the RI project develops, and whether there are further revisions based on the feedback given to the new survey – and whether all the ideas outlined in the proposal are implemented. However, what is really important within this process is the fact that LL are demonstrating a willingness to pro-actively engage with the community and seek solutions where a fundamental change in the way most people work with SL is seen to be counter-intuitive to the ways in which people use the platform, or which seemingly fails to offer any significant advantages over current capabilities – and this is to be applauded.