Personally, I think that Support should be offering first-tier support either for all clients or for no client. There are very few problems that can't be solved by someone who is an experienced user of that client, and most privs are more than aware of when it's time to get in touch with someone who had a hand in developing it.
If we offer support for some clients and not for others, it only leads to problems.
And besides, the authors of the clients have MUCH better things to do than monitor their communities for "d00d why can't i make text bold in your client??!?!?" :)
Ditto, and I think that a lot of people agree. I know that I've been handling Mac client requests that come through the support board for a while :)
We have a number of clients offered for download -- the download page just keeps getting bigger. If we offer support for Logjam, the Win32 client, the Win32-Sema client, and the Web client, I think that we should be offering support for all of them. Otherwise, the user comes to the support board and gets told 'oh, we don't support that' -- even though they downloaded the client from an official LJ page.
It's a bad user experience, and we should be avoiding those at all costs. Especially when it's something so simple as instructions on how to get the client running.
I've been arguing this for a while, if only so that people who don't USE the Mac client can use Highway's thingy to check back over old requests on the same problem and see how they were handled. I'd really like to not be the only person doing Mac support :)
Damn. I would get privs rather quickly if we had a Mac category. ^_^
Funny, i've been told that before :)
I'd actually like (but I know I'm dreaming) another pull down menu added to the support request form... maybe not mandatory, but every little bit helps...
Platform: Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix, Other etc etc...
Browser: IE, Netscape, Opera, iCab, Other etc...
I'd love to be able to filter by platform and browser type...
I think it's been proposed, actually. I know i'd love it too.
But this has gotten seriously off-topic from clients :)
and I would know that if they hadn't taken away my "parent" link *sob*
2002-05-05 05:44 am (UTC)
If your client is popular enough, you've undoubtedly received emails asking for invite codes; perhaps it would be a good idea to incorporate messages into your client informing the user that if they do not have a LiveJournal, then they must get an invite code from a current user, and that the author will not give out any. A note on the downloads page might help too.
Feh. Requiring a code on a new client install is self-defeating. I've bitched about this far too much. I've got the stats showing numerous downloads for installs, but not anywhere near the number that are using it. This implies that they aren't getting signed up... why? Need a code to sign up.
Now, my suggestion was that clients use a special connection to get a code... this is saved by the client, md5'ed, whatever... and the user uses that code to signup. Sure, they can delete their prefs and sign up again... but the effort in doing that is far greater than what some loser who runs through the website grabbing troll accounts. If anything, this code can be tied to a user login by extending the user data fields in the database, and be required for the client to login... so if the client does nuke the prefs to scope a new code, the existing login won't work anymore... unless they're creative... but I digress.
In anycase, clients could also do signups...
The current method is just not working well enough, and is overly prohibitive.
Do you think a section on WAP (Web Accessible Phone) Clients should be added? Mojo, by camdez
, and TapJam, by sol3
, are both available. I have tested both of them, and I even referred someone to them in support. They both work great. TapJam can be found at http://www.tapjam.net/lj
, and MoJo can be found at http://www.netranked.com/mojo/
. Just a thought...
thanks these are great.
the only problem i found is that the time and date cant be changed. as i live in the UK my post via wap is 5 hrs behind.
2002-05-05 10:41 am (UTC)
Support for clients
If my client (web based (plug: http://www.philsumner.co.uk/client.html
- and yes, I know it's not perfect *smiles*)) ever became popular enough that it got a support request, I'd be astounded ;-)
At the point that lj_clive
becomes popular enough that somebody I don't already know is using it, I'll be amazed ;) But, I've also got support trackers set up on Sourceforge.
I think it makes sense for clients to have their own journals/communitites. We're developing for LiveJournal
, so it would make sense to post any updates on. That way they can get the news about their client on their friends page.
A few corrections to the Palm part of the page:
Palm OS™ is the correct way to write it (a space between the two, and it's trade marked).
Also the term "Palm Pilot" shouldn't be used -- the Palm Pilot was an actual device that hasn't been made for *ages*.
Palm OS™ (Palm, Handspring Visor, Sony Clié)