The Big Picture

[Guest]

I think what is not being understood by some participants in these discussion is the scale of change which will follow the transition to the new forums.

Have a look at http://www.jivesoftware.com/products/clearspace-community and you'll see that the purpose of the Clearspace Community software goes way beyond the objectives that might be deduced of the current forums and their underlying software.

My personal take on things is that Adobe have decided that the whole style of the user interactions and community here is no longer appropriate to their corporate needs. There was a time when provision of a support forum was not seen as much related to the main thrust of company objectives, but those days have gone. Online communities are now one of the chief means of interaction between a corporation and its customers - and it's a two way channel. Interaction between those customers is also facilitated by within the online community but that's not necessarily deemed to be the key objective.

The forthcoming change represents, sadly, the end of this community and the creation of a new and very different one. The functional elements and the look and feel of their presentation in the Jive software are carefully designed to foster a particular style of interaction between users of Adobe software, and beween the users and the company. The functions and form are designed for an over-riding purpose and to support an overarching communications philosophy, not thrown in upon a whim.

It seems very clear to me that Adobe expects that the new community will have a significantly different flavour to the old, and that they will have anticipated that not all of the present members of this (and the Macromedia) communities will feel at home in the new one. There's no need to warn Adobe that some people will be unhappy enough not to return - they will have accepted that risk at the outset.

While there will be an inevitable loss of expertise, and it will be sad to see the last of some regular participants here, it seems clear to me that Adobe are hoping that the new style of community (moulded by the software they have chosen to create it) will bring in new members who may well have considerable expertise in the products, but who have not felt encouraged to participate in the style of community we have here now. The company will also be hoping that those newly requiring support will find the new site to be more effective and simpler to use than the old, and that the site will enable the company image and the strengths and usage of the product lines to be put across more clearly.

That, as I see it, is the big picture. There's not much point in discussing the points of detail unless in the context of the overall company objectives in making these changes - and if you disagree with the whole underlying premise of the changes, then there's little chance that you'll like much of the detail either.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

The "Big Picture" is that many contributors to the ADOBE Forums took immense trouble to fill out a Survey about a year ago which asked for our suggestions and our wishes for the proposed combined Forums.

And I am angry, VERY angry, because absolutely NOTHING that any of us said, has received one iota of consideration.

Instead, if the proposed layout which you posted is a true representation of the final thing, then you have let the MM Forum mindset run rampant which has resulted in an exceptionally ugly and time- and space-wasting gimmick-ridden mockery of the excellent Forums we have had until now.

Hideous Avatars, pompously prancing pontificating ACEs, red stripes for good attendance records! Can it get any worse than that?! 

It is unbelievable to me that a company whose reputation was built on creating superb Typefaces for fine typography, and absolutely top-rate PROFESSIONAL applications (like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and GoLive far superior to Dreamweaver in the eyes of many can stoop to the abysmal level of mediocrity being shown in the posted "Proposed Format".

[Ramón G Castañeda]

>but let's not lose sight of the fact that there's a Big Picture of some kind involved in this.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. When corporations become unresponsive, lethargic, gargantuan bureaucracies, one of the first casualties is the "Big Picture".

[Guest]

> I am angry, VERY angry, because absolutely NOTHING that any of us said, has received one iota of consideration.

That would imply that you have seen the results of the survey, or that the contributions - all of them - have been published. It also implies that you know the full range of options originally facing Adobe in making the forum software choice (for all we know, they may have looked at products A, B, and Clearspace, and chose the last as being the one least objectionable to the current forum members).

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Those of us who frequent the Comments & Announcements Forum have A VERY clear idea of the responses which Adobe received in that survey from the members of the real ADOBE Forums because many people actually posted what they had written in that Forum at the time.

There has also been considerable discussion in the C&A Forum on the subject following the two previous disastrous attempts to change the Forum format.

ALL of that has been ignored and steamrollered by the MM Usurpers who have weevilled their way into the mix.

[Claudio González]

I find this thread disturbing. Surveys, long threads full of suggestions, a lot of offers to beta test (as I remember, something that was asked of us, but never a reality),..., all down the drain?

To me, this doesn't look like the big picture, but more like the big brother. Or it may be just that I am too old to be willing to accept the concept of a completely new community with a significant new flavour. I like this community with its present flavour and, from what I have read here, I'm not at all sure I will like the new one. And I no longer need a big brother.

Sadly, I may be within the calculated risk. I only hope, for the sake of participants who come here for help, that the risk was calculated correctly.

[Guest]

Criteria #1 Software that will do what has to be done... combine the two sets of forums in a stable fashion. Nothing comes before that criteria.

Criteria #2 Maintain the forums in such a way that they will be able to be upgraded as needed and not locked in time, as this one has been.

Criteria #3 Following critera 2, use only the built in settings and preferences to tweak the forums as users prefer and as works best overall.

After that it may be possible to consider further options, including the developers of the software to implement requests from Adobe in their software upgrades, or, possibly making another choice of a further change of software once the primary criteria is achieved.

But no one here other then John has any realistic idea of any of these discussions since none of us sat in on discussions. Knowing John tho, he is aware of the desires of the members of the forum and takes them into consideration in every way possible.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

And nowhere on your list do the clearly stated preferences and requirements of the ADOBE Forum Users feature at all?

How very nice and considerate of you.

:(

[Guest]

Reread #3 again, Ann.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Re: #3:
>Your post gives me the shivers, Oz. I don't fancy being 'moulded'.

The entire concept for the redesign gives me more than the shivers it makes me feel totally nauseous.

[markwmsn]

That would be Criterion #3 "Following critera 2, use only the built in settings and preferences to tweak the forums as users prefer and as works best overall." -- not post #3. Note the "as users prefer" part.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

>Criteria #3 Following critera 2, use only the built in settings and preferences to tweak the forums as users prefer and as works best overall.

I am not very optimistic that really means that we, as individual Users, will have the ability to set our preferences to provide ourselves with the plain unadorned listing and layout which we now enjoy.

I read that to mean that the Forum Development team will have limited abilities to tweak the underlying software as THEY preferand in the manner that they deem to be "good enough" for us.

[Guest]

As far as I can see, Ann, it's more about what the software provides in the way of end-user options, out of the box - and out of the box seems to be the way that Adobe want to keep it, as far as possible.

[_Phos_four_dots_]

Even in light of all he back-and-forth, and the conjecturing, and pre-whining, and elegant prognostications, I still can't help but feel like this, from my O.P. in the thread:

"Decisions from on high?" #1, 10 Feb 2009 3:53 pm

We've laid out our guts, and our hearts, pleading for acknowledgment of our concerns. We've earnestly fallen in line, dutifully following requests to fill out surveys, gentle pleas that we read and follow along with these discussions about changes, and provide our thoughts on the matter.

But for what?

We've waited for some feedback about the value of our ideas, and the assuaging of our fears.

Despite all of this goodwill, why do I still feel like I should steel myself for a whack in the head?

[_r_harvey_]

This is my first and last post in this sub-sub-sub-sub forum.

I read the essay as, "Like it or lump it." As well it should be. The handful of people who actually find this corner of the forum are several months late in voicing outrage. Well, they've been voicing it for years, acting as self-appointed beacons of light.

Some long-term blowhards seem to think that they are grandmothered in, that their personal opinions and emotional needs deserve special weight and notice. They actually believe that they are the solution, instead of part of the problem hopefully being repaired.

This is a company's attempt at low-maintenance, low-headache, economical online presence; it hopes to foster a positive image and to encourage a positive atmosphere where customers can find what they need, and the company looks good. Nowhere in that plan would anyone reasonably expect to find a place for a few people to camp out for several years just to make noise.

I had hoped it would be a place for networking, but the old environment discouraged that by its nature and the skewed population, and the new one probably will by its design. For me it isn't over, it never even started.

If individual regulars don't like CHANGE, they can vote the next time Adobe wants them to upgrade. But to go on screaming, thinking that it is something other than embarrassing, is sad. What you want isn't going to happen. Adapt or move on with your life. Like it or lump it.

[Guest]

John can only do what he can do within the limits imposed by available software, Phos. He already said to get ready for changes that we probably won't like... I'm inclined to believe him. In the current environment, however, I don't expect that he's going to spend a lot of time trying to tell people that they aren't going to get what they want. Why in the world would he climb into this viper-pit knowing that he's going to get his head bit off?? I'd really rather he ignore it and concentrate on getting things set up the best he's able. He knows what people want... he's had 14 years now of bending over backwards to try to please everyone.

[_Phos_four_dots_]

Dorothy...

This sentiment didn't come through as I'd hoped it might, and I blame that on the blinkered view tendered by my guileless passion, and that is:

I don't hold J.C. at fault, I've said before that I understand he has an enormously difficult challenge. His position is what one might see if you see a picture next to the description of "Between a rock and a hard place." I recognize that many of the decisions are coming from his bosses, people who are so far removed from the history and long term dynamics of these forums, that they really have no clue about how important it is to us that they get it exactly right.

But just because I kind of understand the spread-sheet decision-making process, that doesn't mean I have to like that process; neither am I going to sheep idly in the pasture and just wait to be sheared.

I'm a little guy with a loud, overbearing voice. I can't see myself being much different than that anytime soon. :)

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

John can do a lot more than that.

The software vendors are not going to want to lose the Adobe contract and pressure should be brought to bear on them to provide an interface that is acceptable for the Forums or lose the contract.

This nonsense of attempting to redesign the Forums has been going on for several years now waiting a few more months so that they actually get it right this time is not such a bad idea.

[Ramón G Castañeda]

Am I mistaken or did Dorothy came on the scene as a result of the takeover of the Syntrillium forums (or whatever they were called before) and the attempted changeover in our forums last time?

That's when I first became aware of her collaboration here, and I seem to recall her as being just as rigid, intransigent, adamant and strident in her defense of the changes which, fortunately and mercifully, were eventually annulled and reversed.

It just seems déjà vu all over again. :/

[Guest]

> The software vendors are not going to want to lose the Adobe contract and pressure should be brought to bear on them to provide an interface that is acceptable for the Forums or lose the contract.

Ann, it's simply not like that. The interface expresses the communications philosophy behind the vendor company. For the sake of one contract among many, they're not going to roll over on their backs and change carefully considered design and functional features that distinguish their product in the marketplace.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

For a contract this size? In this economic climate?

You bet they are going to roll-over if push comes to shove.

And if they are that inflexible, and non-responsive to their Customer's needs, you shouldn't want to get involved with them or do business with them anyway.

[Guest]

Ramón, I've been a host since '98 or so (could be earlier). I am the one that Oz credits for his presence here.

I try really hard to be an "observe and report" person. Something to do with training in nursing no doubt. I pay attention, to the best of the information available to me, and try hard to represent what is going on in the background in as unbiased of a way as is practical. It makes it really hard to do when people are presenting opinions that are so far on the other side as to be laughable tho. So, ya, it's hard to not tend to counterbalance stated opinions of how horrible it's going to be with some that say that it won't be as bad as all that.

In the past week, people have made demands and jumped to conclusions about the forum update based on so little information that they have pretty much blown their credibility with any of the Adobe staff that might otherwise be inclined to listen to their requests and suggestions. In addition, they have gone so far over the edge in attempting to discredit members of the Experts group, without knowing anything about the people or the program, that they have no doubt completely alienated themselves from that group in a way that has likely destroyed any real possibility of a reasonable working relationship.

In a really big way, when people get stubborn and refuse to do anything but oppose the efforts that John and his team are trying to make for us, it creates obstacles that can totally destroy their ability to put together some decent forums at all. It may be in Adobe's best interest to have forums, but if people are actively trying to upset the apple cart, whether it's deserved or not, if they decide to not spend the money on providing this form of free support, well, that won't happen, I don't think. But it could. Then what?

In short, people should try doing a bit of fact checking before they start running off at the mouth. The result would be a whole lot easier to swallow if they didn't turn things into stuff that it's not.

Got to get to work...

[Kath-H]

>Then what?

Then they'd have to up the level, quality, affordability and availability of customer support to an extent that would cost them considerably more.

Do stop scaremongering, Dorothy. I doubt very much whether any Adobe employees working on this have such thin skins that they will go off in a sulk and abandon all attempts to merge the forums - anyway, surely they care more about the vast majority of users than about a vocal few here.

No doubt they want to reputation-manage things to death. I don't like the sound of it, but we'll see what they come up with. And please stop gathering John to your bosom in such an overtly protective fashion - he's never been the one under attack and he's a big boy.

[D__McCahill]

This has been a most interesting time in Adobe land. We have two forces at work ... one that is attempting to implement a change to what appears to be obsolete technology, and another group who are acting very Luddite-like. One a few posts I see images of Chicken Little running around, screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling."

Like most here, I look at the change with some trepidation. I was one of those who left during the last change over, and when this one was announced I was one of those who looked at the sky with some concern.

The one thing that has allayed my fears somewhat is that John has said that while he knew the last change was going to fail, this time he feels much better about things. I have known John (virtually, that is) for a long, long time, and I respect him. After those comments, I decided to pretty much shut up, with the exception of a few questions, until now.

I am ready to wait and see how the entire changeover works. If it fails badly, then I will leave with the others. But I understand that something has to change, and the fact that Adobe has decided not to make the forums mirror the old ones perfectly will not kill me. Heck, I still prefer the old Compuserve forums to anything from today, but I did manage to adapt to this style.

I think we need to give the change a chance, and vote with our feet if it fails. Bickering and sniffling about it (especially inconsequential things like whether or not there will be avatars) will change nothing.

[David_Powers]

> The ACEs have gotten a bad beating here. I don't mind apologizing personally to any and all of them for any offense taken.

Thank you.

> my opinion of the concept itself

I suspect you haven't yet had chance to read my response to your post in another thread, where I explain in more detail how the Community Expert scheme extends well beyond these online forums. DavidPowers, "What About Moderators in the New Forum?" #240, 2 Mar 2009 6:19 am

[David_Powers]

I think this is a cultural difference. The Adobe Community Expert label is something everyone is accustomed to on the former Macromedia side. If it suddenly disappears, the immediate question is: "Have they all been sacked?"

Although this might sound odd to regulars in the Adobe forums, there was a considerable outcry several years ago when some highly respected members of Team Macromedia (as it was then known) were sacked unceremoniously. ("Asked to make room for fresh blood" was the official description, as I recall.)

I think that part of the problem is that some people here think we're going to come tramping all over your forums, preening ourselves and flaunting titles you have never heard of. I'm quite happy to be known as a Community Expert in the Dreamweaver forums, but think that badge would be inappropriate elsewhere. If it can't be switched off in forums outside my field of expertise, I shall probably create a separate account for use when I want to get help there.

There is certainly no intention of foisting a bunch of experts in former Macromedia products on the existing Adobe forums. We'll continue working in our own fields, but I hope the merger of the two systems will make it easier for each side to visit the other, and perhaps break down some of the meaningless hostility some people have displayed.

Just for the record, ACE stands for Adobe Certified Expert. Community Experts are asked not to use the acronym to refer to their title. (Yes, Adobe screwed up on that one; a different acronym or initials would have been much better.)