What is reasonable support for themes/addons? IMO refund should not be the only option.
Permalink
Hi Folks,
I'm upset. Why? Because I've been building a website for a client with a theme, and I've been trying to convince the theme developer to correct a technical issue I've been having.
But those aren't the elements that are upsetting me. What's upsetting me is not only how long I've been trying to get their help, but also their complete, and blatant disinterest in trying to actually solve the problem. The technical hurdle is within IE11, and I know they can't just rewrite the browser. But they have, not once, proposed a work-around, nor even addressed a work-around that I proposed.
Now, before I share the discussion with you, I want to prefix something. I know that there are people who believe one shouldn't get upset and express it in language, but I've been trying to get this fixed for about 3 months now, and my patience has ended here. I think this is a perfectly reasonable time to express frustration. That being said, your opinion of the situation, and what I've said, is your own.
This is what I'm talking about :https://www.concrete5.org/marketplace/themes/fundamental/support/sti...
I opened the issue Jan 6 2017, and they still refuse to do anything that has actually been helpful to me, yet they call this response "support". About three months has lapsed since opening the issue.
So, what's the proposed course of action? Well, seek a refund. But it seems to be completely ridiculous to seek a refund for a theme that is deep embedded in a website I'm building, simply because the developers of the theme refuse to assist in figuring out a solution for one feature. So I'm effectively "stranded" here.
What do you guys think? Is this reasonable support from them? Am I out to lunch? Or what?
Should Refund be the only course of action here? Or should theme/addon developers be held accountable for lacklustre support?
I'm just so very upset, and it's hard to keep composure. I need to deliver to the client, and this is just making my life stressful.
I'm upset. Why? Because I've been building a website for a client with a theme, and I've been trying to convince the theme developer to correct a technical issue I've been having.
But those aren't the elements that are upsetting me. What's upsetting me is not only how long I've been trying to get their help, but also their complete, and blatant disinterest in trying to actually solve the problem. The technical hurdle is within IE11, and I know they can't just rewrite the browser. But they have, not once, proposed a work-around, nor even addressed a work-around that I proposed.
Now, before I share the discussion with you, I want to prefix something. I know that there are people who believe one shouldn't get upset and express it in language, but I've been trying to get this fixed for about 3 months now, and my patience has ended here. I think this is a perfectly reasonable time to express frustration. That being said, your opinion of the situation, and what I've said, is your own.
This is what I'm talking about :https://www.concrete5.org/marketplace/themes/fundamental/support/sti...
I opened the issue Jan 6 2017, and they still refuse to do anything that has actually been helpful to me, yet they call this response "support". About three months has lapsed since opening the issue.
So, what's the proposed course of action? Well, seek a refund. But it seems to be completely ridiculous to seek a refund for a theme that is deep embedded in a website I'm building, simply because the developers of the theme refuse to assist in figuring out a solution for one feature. So I'm effectively "stranded" here.
What do you guys think? Is this reasonable support from them? Am I out to lunch? Or what?
Should Refund be the only course of action here? Or should theme/addon developers be held accountable for lacklustre support?
I'm just so very upset, and it's hard to keep composure. I need to deliver to the client, and this is just making my life stressful.
Interesting point. The issue is related to CSS3 Fluxbox functions. I don't know the finer points of it, as my expertise is elsewhere. But it should be easily reproducible.
I have sent you a private message.
PRB testing cant cover 100% of all variations of use. On the same lines, a developer's own testing cant cover everything. There are just too many variations of use out there.
Reading the support thread, I think the developer's response is entirely reasonable. The only change I would make would be for the developer to add a list of known browser limitations to the documentation.
If the problem had been found at the time of PRB testing, adding such a section to the documentation would have been an approval requirement.
Reading the support thread, I think the developer's response is entirely reasonable. The only change I would make would be for the developer to add a list of known browser limitations to the documentation.
If the problem had been found at the time of PRB testing, adding such a section to the documentation would have been an approval requirement.
Well, I agree with you that it is quite costly to test for every scenario, and mistakes can still be made. I don't agree with you that their response was reasonable.
If you're at all curious, I have updated the original help request with the fix we had to build ourselves, which took a not surprisingly short period of time to do, but I was really hoping c5hub could do it. I've also published, in that thread, the necessary steps to fix it.
Either way, my goal here is to stimulate discussion about this :) I don't want to squelch responses, even if I disagree with them ;P
If you're at all curious, I have updated the original help request with the fix we had to build ourselves, which took a not surprisingly short period of time to do, but I was really hoping c5hub could do it. I've also published, in that thread, the necessary steps to fix it.
Either way, my goal here is to stimulate discussion about this :) I don't want to squelch responses, even if I disagree with them ;P
I'm kinda on the fence. I basically agree with Mr. theFish. Software remedies are almost invariably limted to the cost of the software, which the vendor was willing to refund. Additional costs, such as reimbursement for your development time, are not usually covered. Software costs would skyrocket if that were to change.
That said, I think your desire to support IE11 is entirely reasonable, and your workaround is very good. I strongly agree that any add-on that has significant requirements (eg, non-buggy implementation of a newish feature) should be marked as such.
A rather nice outcome from this would be if the vendor were to reimburse you for your problems while still allowing you to use the theme—while also incorporating your changes to his codebase and documenting the limited behaviour in IE11 (etc). The vendor could consider the refund cost to be payment for your contribution to his product.
That said, I think your desire to support IE11 is entirely reasonable, and your workaround is very good. I strongly agree that any add-on that has significant requirements (eg, non-buggy implementation of a newish feature) should be marked as such.
A rather nice outcome from this would be if the vendor were to reimburse you for your problems while still allowing you to use the theme—while also incorporating your changes to his codebase and documenting the limited behaviour in IE11 (etc). The vendor could consider the refund cost to be payment for your contribution to his product.
I'm not going to bother seeking compensation for making the fix. I just wanted to share it with the world in the case that c5hub decides not to implement it, at least others can apply it themselves. Trying to get them to compensate me for developing it is probably going to burn more time than I care to, and may not even actually get me anything.
Also, a refund doesn't work for me, because I actually need the rest of the theme for a project I'm doing, so that option isn't really on the table.
Also, a refund doesn't work for me, because I actually need the rest of the theme for a project I'm doing, so that option isn't really on the table.
Is it not a basic requirement that it should be fully compatible with all major browsers?
I cannot offer a solution since I do not have a copy of the package with which to run tests on my development box server.