Feature Request ...how to handle

I have been thinking about the procedure of FR’s, the sometimes multiple and almost identical FR’s and about a possible change of the procedure.

I consider this brainstorming and ideation for now.

Procedure so far

  • A user has a wish or suggestion and posts it as a FR.
  • Other users vote for it, and enter further wishes, suggestions or criticisms in free texts.
  • Over time, the FR receives many votes, but no one takes the trouble to structure these contributions.
  • In addition, over the time that the FR is active,
    • Other users post a new FR of a similar nature and this is dealt with in the same way as described above.
    • Some FRs are forgotten and only by chance a user finds out about an upvote, e.g. 2 years later. At that time, no one has any information about the number and content of similar FRs.
    • Sometimes multiple FR’s are identified, and on request to the forum administrators they are summarised.
    • Nobody can say whether a high score vote, for example, is in the pipeline of the developers, or whether it is vegetating in front of me.
    • No one can say whether this FR has a chance of success from a technical, content-related and economic point of view.

Basis for discussion for a new procedure

  • User has a wish or suggestion and posts it as a FR
  • DXO Staff checks this FR for correctness of content, because first of all no one can be sure whether the FR is correct or not.
    • It was submitted out of ignorance of the software
    • possibly due to differences between Windows and Mac versions
    • In consultation with the developers, there is no prospect of success in the next version.
  • DXO Staff puts this FR into a catalogue/database/excel list and creates for it
    • A keywording
    • The edited free text
    • And a data field for status (for voting/votes, differences, rejected)
  • The list is displayed for forum members and each member can cast a vote for it as before.
  • If a user votes for the FR and/or wants to add information, he/she will be given the opportunity to do so via the corresponding fields.
    • Additional information will again go through the process above, i.e. it will be checked by DXO Staff…
      • During this check, other users can read this new addition, but it will not be added to the edited free text until it has been approved by DXO.

This is really only a first, quick plot, but it should make visible that not only the forum members but also DXO will benefit from it, and will surely leave many users more satisfied.

Please discuss and hang me later :cowboy_hat_face:

have fun


Have no cord ready at the moment…but I believe that the current way works as well as any other, provided that someone at DxO reads the requests and adds them to their own tracking “device”.

Having the requests in a table (one and only one) would simplify checking for duplicates, but would the casual poster search a multirow table, if he or she does not do that even with the forum offering possibly related posts while we edit ours?

I see no necessity for DxO to comment posts either, unless for courteous signs of esteem towards the customer.

1 Like

hahaha…good joke with the rope, but then it still needs someone who can manage to put it around my neck.
Okay, joking aside…if everything was so great and worked so well we wouldn’t have all the endless discussions, or all the references from FR to Fr to FR.
But we can carry on like this, sometimes it still has the fun factor as content.

:grinning: :star_struck:

…we’d need no discussions at all - because PhotoLab were perfect then :innocent:

Many of us from IT backgrounds are familiar with systems like GitHub or JIRA which can provide much, if not all that you ask for - DxO staff buy in is critical though