@ Thank you very much! Thanks for the selfless help.
@ wrote:
@ Thank you very much! Thanks for the selfless help.
You're very welcome! 😉
@ I think i found the issue. Your posts were ending up in our SPAM quarantine. Basically, we set up some logic to take care of SPAMers. 9 times out of 10, this works great but we have run into some niche cases where this doesn't work in every situation. So here we are.
I can release those messages if you'd like and our team will look into these rules a bit more.
Thanks!
Thank you for checking
@ 
I thought the problem was due to the software environment so everything is clear.
r
emark: I wrote a lot of comments, what I did not see, tried to find out what could be a mistake.
Thanks again. ;)
You're welcome! Happy to help.
Here's my feedback. Unless viewing this site on an iPad / Tablet, then the UI is inappropriate for the majority of other users.
Three key points, but all related:
- there are acres of empty space, screen real-estate should be optimised not completely wasted
- much more scrolling needed by the user
- scanning through posts to look for a pertinent topic or comment requires MUCH more effort.
None of these are improvements for non-tablet users in my opinion, rather they are a detriment to the user experience when using a desktop or laptop with keyboard and mouse.
Then it gets even worse...
The KB overviews are just a complete shambles, a hodgepodge, a disarray of strewn articles. This layout requires every single tile content to be read, no natural scanning through and speed-reading by the eye-brain is possible. The user completely grinds to a halt. The only way forward is to use the search function.
In other words, change needs to be an improvement, not a worsening, and not change for the sake of change, or for the sake of some passing designers' fad. Making an assumption that everyone uses a tablet / pad and if they don't, the rest just have to put up with the new UI design is wholly inappropriate.
"The KB overviews are just a complete shambles, a hodgepodge, a disarray of strewn articles. This layout requires every single tile content to be read, no natural scanning through and speed-reading by the eye-brain is possible. The user completely grinds to a halt. The only way forward is to use the search function".
I completely agree! Many areas are a Dead End and Very difficult to navigate.
@ wrote:
"The KB overviews are just a complete shambles, a hodgepodge, a disarray of strewn articles. This layout requires every single tile content to be read, no natural scanning through and speed-reading by the eye-brain is possible. The user completely grinds to a halt. The only way forward is to use the search function".
I completely agree! Many areas are a Dead End and Very difficult to navigate.
I have to agree with both of you unfortunately...:(
@ wrote:
@ wrote:
"The KB overviews are just a complete shambles, a hodgepodge, a disarray of strewn articles. This layout requires every single tile content to be read, no natural scanning through and speed-reading by the eye-brain is possible. The user completely grinds to a halt. The only way forward is to use the search function".
I completely agree! Many areas are a Dead End and Very difficult to navigate.
I have to agree with both of you unfortunately...:(
@ wrote:
@ wrote:
"The KB overviews are just a complete shambles, a hodgepodge, a disarray of strewn articles. This layout requires every single tile content to be read, no natural scanning through and speed-reading by the eye-brain is possible. The user completely grinds to a halt. The only way forward is to use the search function".
I completely agree! Many areas are a Dead End and Very difficult to navigate.
I have to agree with both of you unfortunately...:(
They are right Sherry aren't they?
@ wrote:
Here's my feedback. Unless viewing this site on an iPad / Tablet, then the UI is inappropriate for the majority of other users.
Three key points, but all related:
- there are acres of empty space, screen real-estate should be optimised not completely wasted
- much more scrolling needed by the user
- scanning through posts to look for a pertinent topic or comment requires MUCH more effort.
None of these are improvements for non-tablet users in my opinion, rather they are a detriment to the user experience when using a desktop or laptop with keyboard and mouse.
I agree with you on all accounts with the above..
@ wrote:
@ wrote:
@ wrote:
"The KB overviews are just a complete shambles, a hodgepodge, a disarray of strewn articles. This layout requires every single tile content to be read, no natural scanning through and speed-reading by the eye-brain is possible. The user completely grinds to a halt. The only way forward is to use the search function".
I completely agree! Many areas are a Dead End and Very difficult to navigate.
I have to agree with both of you unfortunately...:(
@ wrote:
@ wrote:
"The KB overviews are just a complete shambles, a hodgepodge, a disarray of strewn articles. This layout requires every single tile content to be read, no natural scanning through and speed-reading by the eye-brain is possible. The user completely grinds to a halt. The only way forward is to use the search function".
I completely agree! Many areas are a Dead End and Very difficult to navigate.
I have to agree with both of you unfortunately...:(
They are right Sherry aren't they?
Hi Jasper..they are totally correct IMO!
It is a bit like a room without a fireplace, there is just no focal point.
@ wrote:
It is a bit like a room without a fireplace, there is just no focal point.
That is a good one Jasper!
I keep scrolling down to the bottom of the page out of habit just to scroll back up.:D
This is what we get when the dogma of a fad, or a policy over-rides plain common sense and what the customers need.
We've now had several decades of progressive UI improvements, until the recent tile/modern/flat hit us on the heads in the style of a totalitarian "though shalt..." dictate. Designers stopped actually thinking, or became lazy. They could easily have the website detect the device/screen viewing it and then serve up a different UI for tablet/phones and a different one for desktops and laptops.
Tiles/flat/modern work superbly on my Windows Phone, great piece of design for smartphones but not very smart elsewhere. I predict this fad will soon be over and go the same way as Windows Phones 😉
Whilst I still remain a
dissonator to the consensus of this Thread's posters regarding the overall experience of the new Forum look—which I definitely prefer to the old look—I
do have to agree that the latest iteration of the
Consumer Forum home page is awful and the new
KB home pages are completely and utterly confusing (Indeed, the KB pages suffer from the same flaw that has been inherent right from the original design of the Webroot Forum pages, that is, the stubborn insistence of bizarrely organising all the
Product pages by AV version rather than by i.) core AV engine ii.) additional features, e.g. Identity Shield, Web Shield, Firewall iii.) bells and whistles, e.g. Backup & Sync, Password Manager, System Optimizer, Personalized Security Report—which is far more logical to my mind. This has always been confusing—and plain unhelpful...imo).
"...the stubborn insistence of bizarrely organising all the Product pages by AV version rather than by i.) core AV engine ii.) additional features, e.g. Identity Shield, Web Shield, Firewall..."
I agree, I could never work this one out since I have had licences for all 3 products!
Surely the current arrangement leads to similar questions on any particular issue being raised across all three products, so triplicates and potential confusion, rather than just raising 1 issue in 1 place under the relevant functionality. Yes, some people may not know where their functional issue is arising, but if there's a generic category available then it can fist go in there, then the mods can move it to the correct functional area.
Even easier would be not to have any product or functional categories, after all WRSA is not a mega-suite with a myriad of bells and whistles that warrant a splitting-out of categories. For KB articles perhaps yes, but not general product issues.
Hi Cavehomme,
I do like having separate Webroot AV categories for it helps us alot when knowing what the OP is using. And yes the mods can and do when necessary to move warranted posts. It's easier to know if the OP has Webroot AV, AV Gamer, or Webroot Internet Security Plus and Webroot Security Internet Complete because the later 2 will tell us if they have Password Manager and Backup and Sync and Webroot Optimizer. For Troubleshooting as necessary.
Of course I am settled in with the comfort of Webroot categories for the last couple of years or more. To me this is more organized. IMO
@ wrote:
"...the stubborn insistence of bizarrely organising all the Product pages by AV version rather than by i.) core AV engine ii.) additional features, e.g. Identity Shield, Web Shield, Firewall..."
Surely the current arrangement leads to similar questions on any particular issue being raised across all three products, so triplicates and potential confusion, rather than just raising 1 issue in 1 place under the relevant functionality. Yes, some people may not know where their functional issue is arising, but if there's a generic category available then it can fist go in there, then the mods can move it to the correct functional area.
Even easier would be not to have any product or functional categories, after all WRSA is not a mega-suite with a myriad of bells and whistles that warrant a splitting-out of categories. For KB articles perhaps yes, but not general product issues.
Not so, IMHO. If the Forum features are used as they are intended to as typing in the subject of a new thread causes a search of prior thread and a list of matches is presented to the user as potential options to explore rather than starting a new thread.
But I suspect that many users are either lazy in that regard or do not know how to use the basic features of the Forum.
BTW, I do very much agree with what Sherry has recently posted on this subject.
Baldrick
It's not a matter or laziness Baldrick, it's a matter of how different people approach the raising of an issue.
In my operational experience, people approach a problem in different ways because their brains work in different ways. Some will search using the search funcion, others may feel that their issue is a recent one and likely affecting other users will click on their product and look at the list of issues in chronological order. If they don't find it then they may well find themselves doing that through 3 seperate products - neither approach is right or wrong in my view.
My point is also concerning less experienced users, not us battle-hardened and scarred warriors who probably approach problems in a different way due to our experience and we can normally work around annoyances such as a crap UX. New WRSA customers may be less forgiving or just give up and eventually go elsewhere.
I realise there is no easy answer, and we may all be going off-topic here anyway, this thread is about feedback on the new UX "enhancement" rather than the general structure of the support forum.
@ wrote:
...separate Webroot AV categories...helps us alot when knowing what the OP is using.
Granted. But that could conceivably be done in other ways. For example, when creating a new thread, it could be required for the user generating that thread to stipulate which WSA version s/he is using. Or there could be an automatic control by Webroot backend for each post to check, and display in her/his post, which version each poster is using.
@ wrote:
...Even easier would be not to have any product or functional categories, after all WRSA is not a mega-suite with a myriad of bells and whistles that warrant a splitting-out of categories..
Or perhaps merge my
i.) and ii.) into one category but have separate categories for the bells and whistles? A couple of intermediate windows when generating a new thread could guide posters into realising when their question does not concern the AV engine but one of the bells and whistles.
@ wrote:
This is what we get when the dogma of a fad, or a policy over-rides plain common sense and what the customers need.
We've now had several decades of progressive UI improvements, until the recent tile/modern/flat hit us on the heads in the style of a totalitarian "though shalt..." dictate. Designers stopped actually thinking, or became lazy. They could easily have the website detect the device/screen viewing it and then serve up a different UI for tablet/phones and a different one for desktops and laptops.
Tiles/flat/modern work superbly on my Windows Phone, great piece of design for smartphones but not very smart elsewhere. I predict this fad will soon be over and go the same way as Windows Phones ;)
I don't use my smartphone for surfing the internet...I find it annoying on such a small screen. I want the big picture, and not having to scroll around the web page to find what's what. :@
@ wrote:
Whilst I still remain a dissonator to the consensus of this Thread's posters regarding the overall experience of the new Forum look—which I definitely prefer to the old look—I do have to agree that the latest iteration of the Consumer Forum home page is awful and the new KB home pages are completely and utterly confusing (Indeed, the KB pages suffer from the same flaw that has been inherent right from the original design of the Webroot Forum pages, that is, the stubborn insistence of bizarrely organising all the Product pages by AV version rather than by i.) core AV engine ii.) additional features, e.g. Identity Shield, Web Shield, Firewall iii.) bells and whistles, e.g. Backup & Sync, Password Manager, System Optimizer, Personalized Security Report—which is far more logical to my mind. This has always been confusing—and plain unhelpful...imo).
Yes, you may be a forum "consonator" to my dissonator approach. But, I have to say with all these changes to the look of the forum, I find less to attract and more to distract. The changes do not jell for me.
P.S. I prefer gel, but...cf. -
https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&hs=TUs&q=jell+meaning&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVq8zl3cbXAhXKn5QKHQN9CSsQ1QIIcygB
@ wrote:
Hi Cavehomme,
I do like having separate Webroot AV categories for it helps us alot when knowing what the OP is using. And yes the mods can and do when necessary to move warranted posts. It's easier to know if the OP has Webroot AV, AV Gamer, or Webroot Internet Security Plus and Webroot Security Internet Complete because the later 2 will tell us if they have Password Manager and Backup and Sync and Webroot Optimizer. For Troubleshooting as necessary.
Of course I am settled in with the comfort of Webroot categories for the last couple of years or more. To me this is more organized. IMO
Categories is good, but the changes recently [last few months] made have been discombobulating for me, and my equilibrium is shot. Time for some Librium! 😉
@ wrote:
It's not a matter or laziness Baldrick, it's a matter of how different people approach the raising of an issue.
In my operational experience, people approach a problem in different ways because their brains work in different ways. Some will search using the search funcion, others may feel that their issue is a recent one and likely affecting other users will click on their product and look at the list of issues in chronological order. If they don't find it then they may well find themselves doing that through 3 seperate products - neither approach is right or wrong in my view.
My point is also concerning less experienced users, not us battle-hardened and scarred warriors who probably approach problems in a different way due to our experience and we can normally work around annoyances such as a crap UX. New WRSA customers may be less forgiving or just give up and eventually go elsewhere.hey
I realise there is no easy answer, and we may all be going off-topic here anyway, this thread is about feedback on the new UX "enhancement" rather than the general structure of the support forum.
"...
and we can normally work around annoyances such as a crap UX" - my emphasis. Yes, we can but Webroot should realize that maybe they should have left things well alone. That's how I feel on the subject of all these recent forum changes, made over last few months.
@ wrote:
It's not a matter or laziness Baldrick, it's a matter of how different people approach the raising of an issue.
In my operational experience, people approach a problem in different ways because their brains work in different ways. Some will search using the search funcion, others may feel that their issue is a recent one and likely affecting other users will click on their product and look at the list of issues in chronological order. If they don't find it then they may well find themselves doing that through 3 seperate products - neither approach is right or wrong in my view.
My point is also concerning less experienced users, not us battle-hardened and scarred warriors who probably approach problems in a different way due to our experience and we can normally work around annoyances such as a crap UX. New WRSA customers may be less forgiving or just give up and eventually go elsewhere.
I realise there is no easy answer, and we may all be going off-topic here anyway, this thread is about feedback on the new UX "enhancement" rather than the general structure of the support forum.
Completely disagree...the approach works fine if one bothers to take the time and care when looking for a solution and creating a new thread. But unfortunately nowadays everything is rush, rush, rush & clicky, clicky, clicky...few stop to think about what they are doing.
Grant one would hope that the functionality provided would cater for this sort of behaviour but unfortunately it cannot...and one can only go so far to accomodate this sort of behaviour and changiing the structure to something that in may opinion would be lesslogical & cause the helpers more work, etc., is a no no.
But then again that is just my opinion and I have no say in the matter as to how the forums will be structured.
And I will say no more on the subject as I have no wish to be involved in a polemic.
Baldrick
