It would be more effective, if there was some sort of poll or voting feature on the forums. Not on the whole topic but on individual features presented. Each user could have X amount of votes (let’s say 5), and if they changed their minds they could switch their votes around.
And the main topic could also be malleable, enabling the topic creator to assimilate suggestions from other users, to be voted on.
And Steinberg could easily discern, which features are the most requested ones, not be overwhelmed by a myriad of new feature requests, but primarily focusing on developing the most requested ones.
This could also be used to address the most annoying bugs, as well. The most voted-on bugs should take on the first priority in being fixed. And when those bugs are fixed, they could be crossed off the list or marked as “fixed”, making room for other urgent bugs on the priority list.
The more votes a feature or a bug gets, the higher it climbs to the top of the most important/urgent to-do list. This way Steinberg could get an easier overview of what’s urgent, what’s important, etc.
Win-win for everyone, I’d say.
Yes, it could be a good habit to develop on Steinberg’s side to distinguish between what’s broken and has to be fixed as a current version patch, as opposed to a new feature that is reserved for the new, paid update.
Agreed, but only on the condition that new workflow enhancements don’t erase old ones. If a new workflow enhancement is introduced that conflicts with the old one, there should be a setting or a preference to choose between those.
And the same principle should apply to things like interface customization or enhancements. They should never permanently remove old things that people have gotten used to in favor of new implementations. Always leave an option or a setting to let people choose between them.