[manicdee]

Only if your installation is set up that way. Here's how I create a Jira ticket in my organisation: 1. Click "Create Issue", 2. type in a summary (the headline), 3. type in the detail, 3. Click "Create"

If you have more stuff to fill out, that's an issue with your local configuration. Blame your Jira master, not Jira or Atlassian :D

[lugg]

I'm still going to blame Jira/Atlassian for making that workflow possible.

My work flow is exactly the same as yours, yet it still feels clunky, and is quite correctly, a total dog.

Much like, you know, going to the DMV.

[brazzledazzle]

You only have to enter two fields in your workflow and it feels clunky? This doesn't jive with my experience at all but perhaps you're on an old version or it's resource starved. Once you start beating up jira or confluence you have to start tweaking defaults and jvm settings to get the most out of it.

[lugg]

It's a managed account.

The 2 fields workflow doesn't feel too clunky, but the interface certainly is, and the speed, oh dear lord, the speed. Its just sooo slow.

[brazzledazzle]

I assume managed account means it's hosted by someone else. Unless it's Atlassian themselves they're probably being cheap and giving it as little resources as possible and it not being on-prem probably contributes to the feeling of slowness.

[lugg]

> Unless it's Atlassian themselves

It is

> they're probably being cheap and giving it as little resources as possible and

Almost certainly

> it not being on-prem probably contributes to the feeling of slowness.

Sure, all of 150ms of it really adds up.

[philliphaydon]

Jeez so many replies to jira hate with. Oh buts how you configure it. Oh its this. It's that. Stop apologising for a shitty product. If a user find it hard. It's failed. End of story.

[Strom]

There is no universal solution. Every product will have users who find it hard to use. Speaking out about the fact that you find it manageable is valuable information and may show that there are more users who find it easy to use than not.

[philliphaydon]

I agree. Things for some people, they don't work for others. But you cannot blame users and say "oh its how you configured it" "its good out of the box" etc.

If its failed for 1 user, its a shit product. If its a success for 1 user, it's a great product.

It's GOOD for a user to say they find it easy and why.

It's GOOD for a user to say they find it hard and why.

1 helps the user give a product a second chance by learning of his pitfalls.

1 helps the company improve their product to make it easier for more users.

My point is that apologists shouldn't come in here and blame users for a shitty product.

[simoncion]

> If its failed for 1 user, its a shit product.

That is a dangerous over-generalization.

Let's say -ferinstance- you have kick-ass, seriously best-at-what-it-does software that's only localized in Japanese, and a uniglot USian attempts to use it. They're gonna have a hard time. The software will very likely fail them, because they will be unable to understand anything they're being told by the software.

Does that make the software shit? No. No, it does not. The software is great, it "just" needs to be localized in order to be great for a wider swath of humanity.

[philliphaydon]

Maybe I'm being misunderstood.

From the perspective of the user, if the product fails for that user, its a shit product.

I don't mean the product itself is actually shit.

Like I say:

If its works well for a user. It's a great product. If its fails for a user. It's a shit product.

From the perspective of that user.

But we can learn from both the users who like it, and the users who hate it. But we cannot blame the problems the user has, solely on the user.

[simoncion]

> From the perspective of the user, if the product fails for that user, its a shit product.

Honestly, even this is a hazardous over-generalization.

I've looked at gobs of software that failed to do what I needed it to do. Much of that software was good-to-great at what it was written to do, but it -like a lot of software- wasn't written to do what I needed it to do.

That doesn't make the software shit, that makes it unsuited for my needs. I am -and many others are- clever enough to distinguish between the two categories. :)

[mikeryan]

If a user find it hard. It's failed. End of story.

Yet Jira is a wildly successful product.