Why do I need to get add-ons for simple features?
Asked by Casey Maynard:

I understand Atlassian's business model of outsourcing advancements in Confluence, but I am getting a little discouraged that I am required to purchase very simple add-ons to make my pages useful.

Here are some simple features that I use in my pages that have required add-ons.

1. Checkboxes

2. Pull-down menus

3. Table Filters

And I still need to get

4. Date picker

5. Multi-text fields

6. Multiple Excerpts

I would have thought that those simple features would have been included in the base functionality of Confluence. I joke to other's who are interested in using Confluence that ... 'Do you need a Capital C' in your document? well here is the Capital C add-on for only $10 per user. My apologies for my frustrations, but we committed to using Confluence we were locked in to getting more and more add-ons.


Answers:
author: Nic Brough -Adaptavist-
body: Confluence is a wiki, not a form filling tool. Four of those six functions are not generally in the slightest bit useful in wikis, the fifth is possibly arguable and the sixth is a case of Atlassian not destroying one of its partner companies by implementing their work itself.

It sounds like you need something more structured than a wiki, for which you would generally look to an issue tracker like Jira.

comments: author: Casey Maynard
body: Do not get me wrong Confluence and JIRA are probably the best Issue Tracking and Documentation combination. I just do not like the business model that has been setup to require add-ons for what many users would consider 'basic' functionality.

While Confluence may be a Wiki tool, I would be interested in understanding how many of your users find the need of getting add-ons an inconvenience, and how many were not aware of the lack of basic functionality. I have seen your own Issue Tracking lists and the number of times I have encountered users asking for basic functionality and the fact that the issue is either still 'open' or in a 'will not implement' status is something that I think many adopters of the JIRA/Confluence model would have like to have not upfront.

I would recommend that you offer some type of packaging deal, in that when someone purchases Confluence they have access to 5 - 10 different add-ons (maybe 5 free add-ons and 5 lowered costs add-ons) as part of the package. That way users can customize Confluence to their needs and not feel like they are being 'nickle and dimed' (as another user described it).

Again I appreciate your reply and respectfully hope you understand my intent is to improve the interactions that users are experiences with Confluence.


author: Nic Brough -Adaptavist-
body: From what I've seen, very few people have problems with getting add-ons.

I would say that I don't think I've ever seen two sites with the same set of add-ons. Almost everyone has some, but the sheer range of them makes me question what you call "basic functionality". If Atlassian adopted everything that different people described that way, you'd probably have to implement 80% of the add-ons in the marketplace, giving you a bloated and expensive product that does all sorts of things that 90% of any given users simply don't need. Even if they only took the 10 most common functions, they'd be adding 7-10 functions that 90% of users don't need.

For Confluence, I know of several sites that don't have \*any\* add-ons. They don't need them.

Jira fits that less, as the core product is clearly missing some workflow functions that are unquestionably "core" but not implemented for historical reasons. Beyond those though, it's pretty much the same argument - there's absolutely no way to get agreement on "basic functionality".

Anyway, yes, it's good feedback. But I think I'd point it at Atlassian rather than me! I just work with them, not for them. I've got as much say as you do!


author: Casey Maynard
body: Understood. I can understand Atlassian trying to avoid a 'bloated' application. But I also cannot imagine that my use of JIRA / Confluence is in any way 'Advanced'. If Checkboxes, Pull down menus and Table Filters are not considered 'basic' needs for Documentation 'ease of use' then I am an 'Advanced' user.

And while you may only 'work with them' you certainly have more influence than most other users.

Hopefully my suggestion of an 'Add-on Package' with 5 free add-ons and 5 low-cost add-ons will encourage users to have a more honest understanding of the limitations of Confluence and still allow Confluence to be 'customizable' and useful.

And maybe Atlassian would be open to surveying users to the usefulness of add-ons vs. their cost.

Thanks for the feedback on your part though.


author: Nic Brough -Adaptavist-
body: Most of the documentation I read or even write has no use for menus, check boxes and so-on. Formatting, absolutely, but that's there. (Table filters - sometimes). Usually people asking for that need forms, which is not what wikis are for.

Atlassian are doing stuff around gauging usefulness, but from what I hear, the feedback is pretty much what I said - so scattered that looking at any one function for confluence gets a resounding "meh" from 90-99% of the users, meaning it's not "basic" in their view.


author: Vickey Palzor Lepcha
body: Isn't having an add-on the best way to any tool ? Rather than bringing down the whole application for a small glitch - why not focus all issues and requirements differently.

This is more like dealing with microservices.

My opinion alone :-) - but yes , I love the way it is. Every part of JIRA or Confluence can be dealt - installed - separately without actually damaging the whole application.

comments: author: Casey Maynard
body: Yes. I do appreciate at least Atlassian has allowed open add-ons to be easily integrated into confluence, but there are a few thoughts

1 - I cannot imagine that Atlassian would develop something 'glitchy', that would bring the whole application 'down'. I have rarely experience any glitch in the existing functionality. My issue is the limitations of the core functionality of Confluence.

2 - And it is not easy to find the 'best solution' add-on, an example is that I want a simple 'date picker' without having to purchase an add-on that has this as part of their add-on suite.

3 - The cost of these add-ons adds up very quickly (as we have about 300 'users), but only about 10 of us actually 'use' Confluence (creation and editing), and the other 290 users are just 'viewers' or 'reviewers' of the Confluence pages.

I appreciate your opinion and maybe I am not within Confluence 'market' and need something more advanced.


author: Nic Brough -Adaptavist-
body: On the "glitchy" point, you're right. They make mistakes, bugs happen, but over the years, I've seen Atlassian move from upgrades being a massive undertaking to something you can do while snoozing through a film on a dull evening. (I did two last night in an hour-ish, the only problem being me leaving a spurious comment in a config file)

... If there are no add-ons or unusual configurations.

Most of the pain of upgrades I see now is hacks, add-ons, user directory idiocy and non-standard hardware/os configs.


author: Vickey Palzor Lepcha
body: This looks more like what and application administrator would want and what a vendor management would want :p


author: Shawn Masters
body: Nickle and Dime'd to death is what we call it.

comments: author: Casey Maynard
body: If the add-ons only cost 5 to 10 cents, then I doubt users would have concerns about JIRA/Confluence's business model of outsourcing functionality to 3rd parties.


Tags: atlassian-marketplace