New Chat Site?

[Cystuni]

*hugs* Don't feel bad, it's really easy to miss. Hopefully that works for what you need though ^_^

so far. now for the acid test... will I have to tell it not to remember me everytime? lets see

 

[Cystuni]

so will there be anymore reports on the status of what can/can't or will/won't be changed on this new software?

 

[WizO_Adele]

Yes, there will be. Right now we're still compiling the issues and getting a list. I don't know how long it will be before the techs have things finished but I'm sure Mel will post when she knows more.

 

[Dragona Nightsky]

There seems to be a persistant belief that *which* software Wizards is implementing is up for debate. It isn't. Chatspace will be implemented sometime late this summer.

While it has been made perfectly clear that this is the case, there's still one issue which thus far seems to have been avoided like the plague and I firmly believe needs to be addressed.

Why is Wizards keeping and implementing software that didn't deliver what it promised? This issue hasn't even been touched upon since you made your statement about the chat not living up to what was promised when it was purchased, as quoted below:

This is the item I mentioned I'd be getting back to. There are three or so serious disappointments for me in terms of what was promised for the chat before purchase and not delivered. I knew that the description field was inadequate when I saw the test version. I discussed custome work to the code being done to expand it and was told that, yes, that could be done. Well, after purchase when we get down to it, in fact it can not.

I know I'm not the only one who has a BIG issue with this. It would be alot different if the software has been bought and the coding done to expand the field as promised. I could even understand it (or at least understand it more) if you'd bought the software knowing that the description field wouldn't be adequate enough and couldn't be fixed. [highlight]But the fact is that Wizards of the Coast kept the software even -after- they knew Akiva hadn't lived up to their end of the bargain.[/highlight] Promises were obviously made to Wizards when they bought this software that Akiva failed to keep, [highlight]and yet Wizards not only -kept- the software, but now is, to all appearances, avoiding the subject![/highlight] So please, Mel...I don't mean this to come across as attacking you, but I, and I'm sure many others, want an answer on this: Why isn't this software being returned if Akiva didn't deliver on their promises?

Please don't avoid this question any longer. I would at least rather hear "I can't comment on that subject" than for it to be ignored when so many have showed their concerns about it.

^---Since this isn't a technical issue can we get some kind of word on this from the higher ups?

 

[Krystal]

I'd wager.....


Never.

Wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Dragona Nightsky]

I'd wager.....


Never.</snip>

So it would seem :bored: That's rather discouraging and dissapointing :nonono:

 

[WizO_Adele]

If I knew the answer I would address it. Unfortunately, at this time I do not. I also don't know how often Mel is checking in on this thread and am unaware if she's aware of the question.

 

[Chria'Inz]

I believe that I have addressed all the questions/requests about chat functionality as of this point with either can't do/will find out/can achieve result in X way. Feel free to PM me if I did not address a feature you are concerned about and I usually check those about every three days, or drop me a line at boards@wizards.com which gets checked every business day.

I know she made another post just before the one Dragona's been quoting but it appears to me there is no further promise to check on this thread. Only PMs and emails.

Perhaps we need to draw her attention back. Keeping in mind this being a long weekend in the states.

 

[WotC_Mel]

Hello, yes, I requested to be PMed/emailed if there were further questions regarding chat functionality. I thank the user that did so.

The questions I see here now are wanting to know what changes will be made to the software and why wasn't the software returned when the description feilds was not able to be expanded.

I do not know at this time what changes will ultimately get resolved. I can say that the "whited out" panel that apparently stems from a differnce in the was that MS Java and Sun Java are coded will be resolved in the next applet build. I learned that yesterday. This was a problem with the code itself and was a broken thing to be fixed. I will continue to work through broken items with Akiva.

If there are settings within the chat software that users want that can be set to preferred behavior, I have no problem doing that provided it isnt a moderation problem. For instance, only allowing a user to be "in" one chat room at a time is configurable. Turning off the action exclamation point is an example as well.

Then there are requests for changes that would require altering the code of the chat software itself. These are not broken items but ones either do not exist or operate in a manner different from ichat. Wizards does not have access to the code base of the licensed product to implement these requests and does not have plans to try and offer Akiva money to create custom functionality.

As to the question why the software was not returned, the answer was already given by a user upthread. In the summer of 03, the Akiva sales team had agreed that the profile area could be expaneded to hold a fuller description. Of course, this was only one item in a whole host of questions I had for chat candidates. The tech department had felt that Chatspace played best with Wizards web back end and had greenlighted its purchase. The license was purchased in October of 03. It was set to be configured and implemented in late spring 04. Midway through the implementation process, the tech doing the work took another job. The work stopped and was not resumed again until Dec 04/Jan 05. The applet had since undergone a major rev and was released as 4.0 which we upgraded to. About this time the presumeably smaller issues like skins and expanding the chat box were now getting attention, and not the larger issues of making log in use boards authentication and having a distributed server configuration. On discussion with the Akiva techs I was told that no the profile box couldnt be expanded. We had know owned the product license for over a year, had the major issues of log in resolved and that salesperson doest even work there any longer. As a missing feature it was disappointing but not dealbreaking. Obviously many of you feel differently. However that was not Wizards perspective on it.

As a side note, I did find the possiblity of having profiles pop open a new window that contained a boards post (and you can link individaul posts) offered some interesting possibilities. Including having character portraits and a permanat browsable roster available of all the players in a setting. It seemed (and still seems) like a reasonable work around to me. To many of you it does not.

And that is more justification that most people ever receive about a decision making inside a corporation. . .

 

[Nevine]

Nothing about the chat really. Don't care. "It's happening and that's that" was enough more me.

For instance, only allowing a user to be "in" one chat room at a time is configurable. Turning off the action exclamation point is an example as well.

[Sidious]Do what must be done![/Sidious]

As a side note, I did find the possiblity of having profiles pop open a new window that contained a boards post (and you can link individaul posts) offered some interesting possibilities. Including having character portraits ...

Can we have attachments turned on so we don't have to buy our own image hosting or worry about the bandwidth being used up for the free stuff?