(no title)
gelstudios | 1 year ago
One concern I have about the instant-replay feature is the potential performance implications when monitoring multiple tabs or windows. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of all sites in this way and prefer better controls there.
I saw the block list inside the extension, but I think an allow list makes more sense for this use case. That way, .ycombinator.com or .example could work as opt-in for instant replay, and ideally, those domains could be preconfigured at the team level.
Acknowledging Chrome's extension per-site permissions is a valid option, but it's clunky.
+1 vote for a datadog integration, in addition to backend data I would love to see this work well with RUM. For now, I'll settle for jamming a common ID into Jam.Metadata and see how that works out.
I also thought Jam would accept bug reports from end-users and look forward to the development of that feature.
Comments synced to timestamps in the recordings are nice. Have you considered a scribble/annotation like the still screenshots, but for videos? The annotations could be anchored to the comment timestamp, and they would help capture a UX micro-interactions that may not be obvious in a still or video.
boarush|1 year ago
I'd be pretty annoyed if the bug is not reproducible and I lose that chance of generating a bug report.
thedg|1 year ago
Yeah +1, the reason why we built a blocklist vs an allow list is because Chrome settings already allows you to specify an allow list for extensions so we were just trying to round out what settings you couldn’t set already in the browser.
Also I love the idea of annotating a video, sharing that with the team! Thank you!