It seems well developed (minus the bugs folks are reporting), but I'm not entirely sure why I would use this instead of a normal document.
The ability to move things around in this format seems somewhat useful, but not particularly useful for any workflow I engage in.
When I create docs for work, I want to tell a story that is quite linear. When I want to tell concepts of hierarchies, I'll make a chart and then paste in the document.
I could see people perhaps storyboarding with this? Creatives?
I would encourage you to find all the types of people who are using this organically and segment the customers, then engage in a vigorous set of interviews on how they'd like to see it improved.
Some of the product decisions, too, seem quite strange. For example, why is commenting something that I have to drag onto the page as well? Why is that not integrated into each box with a click? Or why is that not generic to each board -- 1 chat room per board? These features would ideally be developed with specific customers in mind who say "I want it to work this way!"
This is one of those products that starts off "looking like a toy" but might actually become super useful down the road as it evolves. Good luck!
Call/email/meet with a wide sample of users and understand the exact value you're delivering for them. Then find people who aren't using it but are in the same market as them and see if they find it valuable. If you have a hit product, you'll find a market segment where you're delivering 10x value over their previous solution. Once you find that, focus and go all in.
One-size-fits-all is rarely a viable strategy for SaaS tools.
P.S: It should be a static site
The pricing is IMO going to hold back adoption of this product. There's a free plan, but with 3 boards and 50 cards, that's just a quick demo. There's no way you could do anything serious with that. It's not even enough to seriously try out the product.
Then it jumps to $60 a year. I know the standard line about a cup of coffee, blah blah. That's a lot of money for most folks in a very crowded space. (I won't comment on product differentiation.) For someone that uses this heavily, I'm sure $60/year is a great deal. Very few people will, and they'll just move on.
In my opinion, for this to have any chance of catching on, it needs either a real free tier, or a low-price tier of maybe $20/year. Storage is a great way to differentiate tiers because everyone knows storage costs money. 100 boards and 10,000 cards plus 200 MB of storage for the free plan, upgrade to 5 GB of storage for $20/year, or get the current basic plan for $60/year.
As someone that has evaluated many products in this space, I really think you need to reconsider your pricing. You're using the wrong mindset if you expect someone to drop $60 to try out your product.
And besides "$60/yr is nothing" is not how people decide whether to buy something. There are thousands of products we can buy that are worth more than the price.
Make sure to communicate the differentiator, perhaps change the visual style of the home page. In the current state it looks like a clone.
It really says nothing about the product or its suitability for anything. They just want an excuse to stick recognizable names/logos on their homepage.
It's funny to me, because just yesterday I was a having a conversation with a colleague who asked me if we had a "corporate account" with another commons SaaS PM tool that he has been using with his team. I think he was in shock when I listed all of the project management and collaboration tools that that I've seen used in our organization. There are no "standard" project management, planning, organization, sharing, etc. tools at big companies. There might be "official" ones, but then managers and directors just buy whatever the hell SaaS they want on a credit card.
Shadow IT is a thing. No company avoids it. I'd assume most Global 2000 companies use just about every single popular tool you can imagine _somewhere_ within their organization.
Ps - separate topic but I have a hard time signing up for anything without knowing who the underlying owners or the company are and who the company is - legal entity, investors, headquarters location... never mind I could use a throwaway email address and password to register, what’s the point of putting my working documents on a service that can’t establish basic trust. Talk about rogue IT... what does it say about the organizations on their website that individuals used their company email address and possibly the same credentials that they use to login to their IT department? Never mind placing of potentially confidential information on an unknown SaaS?
I don't know what the legality of just putting them up there whether they want to or not is, but obviously the social proof of doing so is huge.
How do people navigate this?
Tried out the demo:
- couldn't write in text blocks (chrome 79/mac)
- drawing went above cursor
- fullscreen / new page would be better
The drawing above the cursor looks like an issue with the iframe
The iframe url is https://app.ryeboard.com/board/demo, which works well
I hope you'll have more success, but at this moment I cannot see anything in there that makes it better than the product that the company I worked for was working on..
That said, I found it a little buggy at the moment. A couple of bugs I noticed were that scrolling too quickly to the right produced an error, and the 'flag' box rendered some of the text outside of the box. A tiny usability improvement for me would be if the buttons behaved more like Photoshop or Omnigraffle, where I can select the tool and then apply it on the canvas, rather than dragging the tool to the canvas. I'd also like to try out all the different tools before paying - the checklist box, for example.
The sizing and color options, the simple way some small things in the UX works to make grabbing a postit fast, and coloring it correctly was really, really surprisingly nice
Good product anyway, I'll use it later I think
What is this exactly?
Granted, I only skimmed the page, and the website made the experience painful, as it is full of fade—in animations, so I felt like I was scrolling an empty wwbsite (mobile Firefox). The experience was annoying, so I left.
I would likely have stopped scrolling had I encountered a screenshot or a relevant section title. I feel websites like this are super common nowadays, and generic enough to be applied to many different products.
I don't know what the things you build with it are for.
Needs more screenshots and less abstract drawings of the UI.
Looking at your twitter, I see this is based in Seoul. No doubt English is known thing, but 'wry' and 'rye' are sound-alike words, and the moment I read 'ryeboard' I also heard 'wryboard'.
They are not quite engaging for creative users however.
I find the « messy infinite desktop » where documents and webpages are not only links but viewable widgets really attractive but rapidly limiting.
For ideation / brainstorming, I still prefer gathering people in a room and writing / sticking stuff on the walls.
Also, did you design the animations?
I'll be taking into account some of your responses to other members.
A. So, home page:
Anything, Anyone, Everyone. You feed everyone, you nourish no one. You have a rough idea of who your target customers are, but are holding off... until numbers are more statistically significant.
At your stage, that could be a while, and frankly shows a:
1. Lack of direction
2. Lack of properly segmenting whatever groups you have looked at
3. Lack of clearly defining early adopters
4. Lack of positioning
5. Lack of relevant copy addressing pain points, motivations, objections, reservations
6. Lack of initiative
7. A few other things, which is somewhat worrying.
I am of course willing to update my initial thoughts upon more information. I don't ignore the fact it takes time, a lot of time, it's an organic evolving path, and I make the same mistakes many times. But for now, that is what I think. Instead of taking the long way round, why don't you take the shorter way, which is to clearly define:
1. Who this is for
2. Early adopter disposition which makes it more relevant to them than the rest of the market
3. Reach out to them and find out what they think. If you are looking for signals, this is the quickest way.
4. Pain points addressed, benefits, goal, end-goal, etc, etc.
I am not actually saying you haven't done these things, what I am saying is based on information shared, and the website, that I don't see it. To be fair to you, points B. 1 -4 should really be questions. If you want to answer in private to me, by all means. To also be fair to you, due to the versatility of your product and the many use cases, you do have many markets you could target. However when time, money, resources, focus, etc, are severely limited you can't go after them all.
Furthermore, there may well be competitors known and unknown who can service some of the markets better than your solution, who have honed and refined their features to either be more suitable for them, or have segmented features based on various factors to do so. Which again leads me back to, pick a target, see if you can hit it or not, because at the moment, it is a case of we are waiting to see which target to aim for.
C. Ok, back to the home page. When you say Work with Anything, Share with Anyone, I read This Might Be For You, Maybe. That's no way to greet a newcomer. You either very blatantly let them know, This Isn't For You At All, or This Is Seriously For You.
Secondly, early stage startup (pre-seed pre-revenue), describe your product. You have nothing in the memory bank, no previous touch-points, don't create confusion and promote a lack a clarity in visitors. Very simply for now, what are you, what do you, how do you do it, what's in it for me, why should I care. All within tight positioning. You can't create a fire within anyone, but you can surely fan the flame. And your early adopters, their fires are burning.
D. I know this is the current trend with startups especially, inappropriate usage of customer logo's, as in way too soon. Trust, social proof, are important, but not at this stage. Just like in the funnel when it is further down, so it should be the same on the homepage. Instead of talking to your potential customers, instead of building bridges, creating resonance and relatability, usage of customer logo's is basically saying, let my customers speak for me. The onus is on you to speak to your customers, and not to shift that responsibility. I haven't made up my own mind yet at all, so what do I care what others think?
There are other issues further down the page, but I don't like to come across as too harsh, plus I need to get back to work.
Good luck, Ace.
First of all, thanks a ton for taking the time to give me this detailed and candid feedback - it is exactly what I needed to hear to plan out my next steps. At the moment I admit the product is a bit too general to survive in the harsh SaaS market and will need to find a market fit in order to survive.
I will reevaluate the direction of this project and what this product should be.I am grateful for all this interest in Ryeboard and thanks again for taking the time to write out this very detailed feedback!