Add-ons Idea Exchange

[JackDunaway]

---

@Dennis Knutson wrote:

I see big advantages to the separate add-ons/toolkits,etc. idea exchange. As I see it, it would be watched by those who write LabVIEW code as opposed to those who modify LabVIEW. I'm pretty sure these are distinct groups within NI and its an idea exchange that external individuals/companies can monitor for possible product development. You can likewise monitor the Idea Exchange by clicking on one of the Labels. For instance, you can watch the Networking Communications Label on the LabVIEW Idea Exchange just as easily as you can watch it on the Add-Ons Idea Exchange. Plus, any developer who neglects the LabVIEW Idea Exchange in favor of only following the Add-On Exchange has an arguably stunted research strategy.

Pretty strongly disagree with your statement "since software is generally industry-agnostic". I think one of the best examples of industry specific software is the Biomedical Toolkit. There are many others and I think this is the sort of thing the new idea exchange is trying to encourage. Take a look at the 17 posts targeted to "jump start" the Add-Ons Exchange - none are industry specific. I can't argue there's no such thing as a domain-specific toolkit, I just question the necessity to create a label that may never be used, and an unused label is noise.

When looking at the palettes on a Block Diagram, is there a thick line drawn between Add-Ons and LabVIEW Core? No. But I agree there's a distinction between "those who write LabVIEW code as opposed to those who modify LabVIEW". So do we model the feedback collection mechanism (Idea Exchange) based on the way the user interacts with the language, or how the functions are developed? I would lean toward modelling the user's perspective since it's the user creating Idea Exchange content, but in reality the Exchanges are a developer tool, so pockets of developers may request their own Idea Exchange. This works fine if the product groups are not symbiotic, but I contend LabVIEW Core/Addons should not be mutually exclusive since it can be a booger to classify an Idea in one group or the other.

The Idea Exchange format is only good for taking the temperature of sentiments of a large population. I don't know if it's the best format as a match-making service between developers and specific/corner case requests.

Again, I'm not busting chops or trying to stifle Add-On development, I'm just questioning if you're going to get a better response by leveraging a single Idea Exchange or fracturing the subset from the superset.

---

[JackDunaway]

From my tag suggestions above, you could revise #8 to read "Add-on/Toolkit Candidate". Adding the qualifier suggests the Idea could be a core feature, or it could very well act as a springboard for Add-On Development.

I would not be surprised if this Label could be applied to a few hundred of the already-existing Ideas, rather than just 17.

[Minty]

I pretty much agree with your premiss. When I was asked on my idea whether I would mind it being moved to the add-on section, my response wasn't over enthusiastic.

As a developer, I of course, would like to see all add-ons and tool-kits in the base package (i.e. no such thing as a paid-for add-on). In a perfect world I would buy labvVew and have everything.So asking me to specify that it should be considered as such is a bit moot. But I understand that money is money and add-ons is the revenue path NI (and others) have taken.

But. I think whether an idea is a potential revenue stream and can be monetised in an add-on is really an internal NI debate rather than a concious choice by me as a consumer. My goal (as a consumer) is to raise awareness of a feature that I would like t see and the IE is the vehicle enabling me to do that. I don't want an idea as an add-on (which is what I'm suggesting if I post in an "add-ons" thread) but having it as an add-on is better than nothing.

From a usage point of view. +1 with the tag idea. Given my thoughts generally about add-ons, I think you will see that I for one, would not be a frequent visitor to the sub-forum. And, with that as a consideration, would probably not post in there either since I would want whatever my idea was in the base package.

[Minty]

IOoops. Sorry. Double post

[PJM_Labview]

I also think that the label idea is the best.

Personally while I regularly check the idea exchange, I seldom visit the RT one. I think that having it visible (The LabVIEW Addon one) as a 1st class citizen (as part of the "main" idea exchange under a label) will be fine.

Another related topic:

I also thinks that it could be useful (although potentially messy) to allow voter to select a label when they vote for an idea. At the moment the labels is picked by the original poster, and it may not be the most appropriate one.

Just a though.

PJM

[JackDunaway]

On the Idea Exchange you'll see a new tag called "addon_candidate", so now when you click on that tag it gives a list of all good candidates for an Add-On. Anyone can tag any post with this tag, so feel free to use it in places other than the Idea Exchange!

As a side note, if an "Add-On Candidate" Label were created, the filtered view is much more user-friendly than the view from filtering on a Tag (the resultset show Ideas like the forum, not a condensed view like Search Results).

[crelf]

I think the exchange scism is a good idea, but it's been poorly executed.  Maybe I just don't lurk in the right areas, but I hadn't heard about it until a LabVIEW Champions meeting last week.  I'm sure with more exposure it'll take off.

[JackDunaway]

---

@crelfVO wrote:

I think the exchange scism is a good idea, but it's been poorly executed.

---

A schism is a good way to starve two symbiotic organisms - sequestering these two Idea Exchanges is going to hurt rather than help.

---

@crelfVO wrote:

I'm sure with more exposure it'll take off.

---

The Add-Ons Idea Exchange has been live for over two weeks, and so far there are 4 posts. Of the four posts, one was off-topic, one was pointing out the off-topic post, a third was moved from the Add-On Exchange to the LabVIEW Idea Exchange. This leaves one actual Add-On Idea, which has received one vote.

On the other hand...

In the past two weeks the LabVIEW Idea Exchange has generated four new Ideas that have received the addon_candidate tag. (Also, thanks to shb for helping me tag other good addon_candidates.) This shows that even with the presence of an Add-On Idea Exchange, people tend to default to the LabVIEW Idea Exchange due to some combination of: exposure, familiarity, and genericity.

Again, I'm not trying to shutdown the generation of Add-On Ideas - just the opposite. The process needs a format that works, and the best solution using existing tools is to create new Labels for the LabVIEW Idea Exchange. This provides a distinctive category (a "soft schism" 😉 ) and leverages existing traffic.

[crelf]

---

@JackDunaway wrote:

---

@crelfVO wrote:

I think the exchange scism is a good idea, but it's been poorly executed.

---

A schism is a good way to starve two symbiotic organisms - sequestering these two Idea Exchanges is going to hurt rather than help. 

---

I think NI's idea is that items in the Add-on Idea Exchange items could be developed by a third-party and subsequently offered in the LabVIEW Tools Network. rather than members just dumping ideas in R&D's lap - they're concentrating more on core LabVIEW, and not add-ons.  That's why the schism makes sense.  I'd like to follow a separate idea exchange more closely than the main one, as it's more important to my business as an add-on developer - and that's why NI set it up as a separate group IMO.

---

@JackDunaway wrote:

---

@crelfVO wrote:
I'm sure with more exposure it'll take off.

---

The Add-Ons Idea Exchange has been live for over two weeks, and so far there are 4 posts. Of the four posts, one was off-topic, one was pointing out the off-topic post, a third was moved from the Add-On Exchange to the LabVIEW Idea Exchange. This leaves one actual Add-On Idea, which has received one vote.

---

Um, I think you're defending my point - or talkaing about something different - I'm not sure 🙂  The Add-On Idea Exchange went live, but I didn't see any announcement about it or about what it was for, so there's obviously going to be crap in there.  There's crap in the LabVIEW Idea Exchange too, but it's got a higher SNR because its meaning is more obvious.

Bottom line: you're obviously more passionate about the format/delivery system than I am, so if merging them together is so important to you then I'm not going to stand in your way.  I'd prefer it split, but not as much as you'd prefer it merged.

[JackDunaway]

Yes, format and delivery is the only thing I'm addressing here (it's the Feedback Forum, after all). And yes, "I'm defending your point" about "it's been poorly executed". I think everyone's on the same side here - wanting to generate some Ideas for Add-Ons, and we all want it to somehow be distinct from the other LabVIEW Ideas.