Clickup 3.0 and the story of another system in which the developers thought they knew better than the users how to build their system
Алексей
I want to tell you a story. Many years ago we chose a project management system and worked happily and enjoyed the development of the system.
Several years ago, this system began to make strange interface changes. We fought - both our team and many other teams - we wrote on forums, explained, complained. We managed to undo several critical changes - the system rolled back the changes and we were happy - we can continue our usual and convenient work!
However, the general vector of development was changed, the developers did not listen to their users. They believed that they knew better how to develop their system. We have all come to terms with it. Well, can we work? Well, not as convenient as before, but where to go?
We thought about the reasons for what was happening - perhaps a new UX director has arrived and he has his own vision. But over time, many began to think that competitors had sent a recruited agent to kill the project.
After the next “improvement” I lost all understanding of what was happening with my projects - they could not be managed. I said, ok, I studied 20 project management systems, and set a goal to switch to clikup.
I think it won’t be difficult for the clickup development team to understand what system I’m talking about - they see the volume of user migration from asana to clickup. Unfortunately, the asana project cannot be helped - it will go bankrupt and cease to exist in a year - two - three.
You understand - we're not talking about asana, we're talking about the fact that sometimes developers stop hearing their users. This is very bad for users - they suffer, they are offended that a wonderful project turns bad. This is very bad for the project, because after some time users get tired of fighting and move to another project.
Clickup developers - please don't stop hearing us! Version 3.0 is bad, very bad. Version 2.0 is complex, many people complain about it during the adaptation period, but not because of the poor user interface, but simply because the system itself is complex and has a high entry barrier. After a month of work, version 2.0 becomes very convenient. Yes, it has flaws, but these are minor things. The user interface of version 3.0 is fundamentally bad, fundamentally very bad.
There is no need to force everyone to switch to a bad interface in the hope that people will get used to it - no, they will look for alternatives. Just go back to the 2.0 UI and improve it. The interface of version 3.0 cannot be modified - it just needs to be canceled.
Tears well up in my eyes. I've been searching for months for a system that will solve my problems. I found such a system - clickup 2.0. I've been setting up my company's infrastructure for clickup 2.0 for several months. And now I just don’t know what to do.
People! Please add comments so that this story gains popularity and is seen by the developers.
Log In
Ross McConeghy
Zeb Ivan Villa I'm sure there are many of us with this same story. We are trying to build our business processes on ClickUp because it was better than most of what is available in the market. However, the v3 changes to the interface seem more like an act of sabotage from a competitor's mole then a genuine attempt to improve the UX.
With the v3 forced downgrade ClickUp is no longer the obvious choice, they're yet another developer that doesn't listen to the needs of their customers and makes unilateral decisions that disrupt the critical path processes of their customers.
There must be a solid foundation on which to build business systems, operational decision makers cannot afford to build on shifting sands.
Zeb
Ross McConeghy: Thanks for the feedback. Can you please outline some of the most frustrating UX issues you're running into? A clip/loom works for just outlined points.
Ross McConeghy
Zeb
TLDR
I believe the
most fundamental issue is
the mis-application of design principles that call for decluttering the UI by hiding the "less commonly used" elements in separate tabs
. This principle does not work for a static UI
in a customizable system where the user decides what is "less commonly used"
. Tabs would only make sense if users had full control over the layout of all the task content.---
Specific
The issues related to Task View and Inbox are most significant and have increased required input for nearly every work flow.
The amount of clicks required to perform the same work has increased
for almost every process because of the change from scrolling to see content, to hiding the content behind different tabs in the task view.Less critical
Treating relationships as something totally separate from custom fields is fundamentally flawed. In many cases a task relationship has the same importance as a custom field and would make more sense to be right in line with the other fields. For example, the vendor
(linked via relationship)
for an inventory item is of equal importance to the reorder quantity or price, it should not be separated off into another UI space.The new search bar across the top is a complete waste of space.
Ross McConeghy
Zeb Ivan Villa
Comparison of the same process in v2/v3:
V2
- Click to open a task
- Move mouse over any part of primary task window pane
- Scroll mouse wheel
V3
- Click to open a task
- Precisely Move mouse to Relationships tab
- Click mouse
- Precisely Move mouse to Details tab
- Click mouse
- Precisely Move mouse to Checklists tab
- Click mouse
And now that I'm looking at relationships and checklists, if I need to add a comment I'm
8.
moving the mouse
and 9.
clicking
the Activity tab, then 10.
moving the mouse
and 11.
clicking
to add the comment, but now both relationships and custom fields are hidden so I can't reference all critical information while commenting unless I make more 12,13...
precision mouse movements and clicks
.That's
13 inputs
to add an educated comment on a task in V3, in V2 it would be
4 inputs
.I don't understand how this made it to initial release
, and then remained broken all the way through the forced migration.Zeb
Ross McConeghy: Thank you for the very helpful feedback! Will give users the option to change the tabs in the next couple of weeks in task view. We're working on the other pieces of feedback to find a middle ground. Inbox will be customizable in the near future.
Ross McConeghy
Zeb Thanks!
Parking a bus on middle ground the size of a penny is certainly challenging..
Building the system for a fully customizable Task View layout would be a significant investment but it could solve a lot of issues and expand realistic applications of the system.
Ivan Villa
Ross McConeghy: Thanks Ross! we already have a thread going in another comment but to tie it in here we are working on it. While the change is still being battle tested it should help tremendously with the clicking in task view.
Georg Martinka
Ross McConeghy exactly, well said - can you post this here too? thank you https://clickup.canny.io/v3-feedback/p/too-many-clicks-in-clickup-30-task-view-and-inbox
Katharina Gambs
Please comment and upvote here: https://clickup.canny.io/v3-feedback/p/mandatory-changeover-to-clickup-30