FP+ Details Are Out!

[Shaden]

By this logic, why test? Just roll it out, because feedback from any test won't fully represent full rollout conditions.

As others have said, so much data has got to be going into this: aggregate historical data from decades of running parks about crowd patterns, satisfaction, etc.; testing feedback - under changing conditions - in the current FP+ incarnation; feedback about POSSIBLE differences post-rollout vs testing -- ie testers being asked in focus groups how their opinion would change if they got rid of legacy FP system. I wouldn't be surprised if they also draw some on these boards and their own social media sites as well, and factor in feedback from those who write in.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Then why have you been crapping on people for complaining ?

And, as a researcher, I very well understand the concept of theoretical testing, or theory crafting, which is actually what people are doing on these boards, and its valuable, which is why, again, I can't understand why you are basically poking fun at people complaining here. If you are testing in an abstract situation, one removed from actual working conditions, then there is no external validity to the test, there is only internal validity. You then have to attempt to create linkages to real world function, and hypothesize outcomes, but that's all they are, "best guesses" of outcomes.

To a certain extent you are correct, testing in abstract or controlled environments is not worth much for a system such as this.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Of course you didn't say that. But it is absolutely understandable to feel differently about people doing the exact same thing when you fundamentally agree with one group and disagree with the other.

The bottom line is that, despite your claim, NEITHER side has made anything up. BOTH have been making guesses (based on the info Disney has released and how the company has historically behaved) as to what is going to happen.

I hope that is a point both sides can agree on.

I think we'll have to do the DIS-famous "agree to disagree".

I actually think there's a different EFFECT on the reader between saying "I'm going to keep an open mind based on Disney's history" and "I'm projecting a catastrophe based on Disney's history and expect to cancel upcoming trips" - as an eg.

The statements may be equally (un)informed, but the latter makes rash decisions based on conjecture and gets many readers worried.

The EFFECT is a negative one IMO, and it's the EFFECT that makes me, personally, see them differently.

It's not because the optimists (generally) align with my thinking, or the other posters (generally) don't.

I actually agree that there are a number of things, that IF they pan out, will make FP+ a step in the wrong direction for our family (IF there are no same day FP's, IF they stick with 1 park per day, IF they work out the AP stuff in a way we won't like, etc.).

So I have many of the same concerns as the "pessimists" -- I'm just not FORECASTING that all these concerns WILL be in the final incarnation. Difference.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Cafeen]

By this logic, why test? Just roll it out, because feedback from any test won't fully represent full rollout conditions.

Because testing can find other technical issues not related to availability or load issues.

Using the Theme Park example above, if in that 100 people testing, they found that their log ride couldn't handle all 4 seats full, but could handle 3, it would be an acceptable result (well, the result is acceptable as a result, they'd want to fix it of course) of said test.

It's all about what they're looking for in said test. For the current round of testing, I'd venture to guess that they're looking for Ease of Use issues, RFID/Magic Band issues (especially relating to ticketing and holding the data for the FP+), Access Point issues (issues with the points at the attractions communicating with the central system), and Application issues (using the MDX App/Kiosks to access and alter FP times).

With such a limited test, they're certainly NOT looking for any reliable data on availability of FP+s or anything related to the 60+10 booking. They'd need a MUCH larger sample size engaged in the testing MUCH earlier than they're doing this round.

I'd actually expect another round of testing near the end of the cycle that does focus on this and is a much broader sample group (including off-site to make sure that things work well for that combination) engaged much earlier than their planned trips. This would also serve as a "load test" of sorts to insure that the internal network as well as the system itself could potentially handle the larger load of closer to production levels they expect.

(Note: Most of this is supposed via my knowledge of software testing in general rather than Disney practices. In other words, this would be the RIGHT way to do it and the way that I would structure the testing phases if I were in control.)

 

[bellaprincess98]

I'm not sure if this has been talked about, but what does this mean for the people who stay off site?

 

[Jennasis]

I think we'll have to do the DIS-famous "agree to disagree".

I actually think there's a different EFFECT on the reader between saying "I'm going to keep an open mind based on Disney's history" and "I'm projecting a catastrophe based on Disney's history and expect to cancel upcoming trips" - as an eg.

The statements may be equally (un)informed, but the latter makes rash decisions based on conjecture and gets many readers worried.

The EFFECT is a negative one IMO, and it's the EFFECT that makes me, personally, see them differently.

It's not because the optimists (generally) align with my thinking, or the other posters (generally) don't.

I actually agree that there are a number of things, that IF they pan out, will make FP+ a step in the wrong direction for our family (IF there are no same day FP's, IF they stick with 1 park per day, IF they work out the AP stuff in a way we won't like, etc.).

So I have many of the same concerns as the "pessimists" -- I'm just not FORECASTING that all these concerns WILL be in the final incarnation. Difference.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Or the doom and gloom posts could inspire someone to voice their concerns directly to Disney where it might actually matter as opposed to sitting back and waiting to see what happens. Which is what happened in my case. The discussions here inspired me to be proactive and write in. Hopefully others will too.

 

[Cafeen]

I'm not sure if this has been talked about, but what does this mean for the people who stay off site?

Right now, it's looking like off-site visitors will have the same access to FP+ as onsite visitors. The only difference is that on-site visitors may make up to 10 days of FPRs (FastPass Reservations) at 180 days before date of check-in, whereas off-site visitors may make their FPRs 180 days before date of visit. Just like how ADRs are handled, but with a 60 day base instead of 180.

This is still under development though and things may change, but that's how it's looking at the moment.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Then why have you been crapping on people for complaining ?

And, as a researcher, I very well understand the concept of theoretical testing, or theory crafting, which is actually what people are doing on these boards, and its valuable, which is why, again, I can't understand why you are basically poking fun at people complaining here. If you are testing in an abstract situation, one removed from actual working conditions, then there is no external validity to the test, there is only internal validity. You then have to attempt to create linkages to real world function, and hypothesize outcomes, but that's all they are, "best guesses" of outcomes.

To a certain extent you are correct, testing in abstract or controlled environments is not worth much for a system such as this.

LOL! First of all, I won't even repeat your first statement above -- I'll just say that this is not what I'm doing.

I, too, understand the testing process. So as a researcher, it's valuable to you for people to complain on a forum you may not even access as the researcher, rather than provide you with direct communication about their potential concerns about what they've heard about your new system?

And would you advise those testing out something you're working on / introducing to make a decision to ditch the product before you roll it out (eg this is going to be a disaster - I'm canceling my next trip)?

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[bellaprincess98]

Right now, it's looking like off-site visitors will have the same access to FP+ as onsite visitors. The only difference is that on-site visitors may make up to 10 days of FPRs (FastPass Reservations) at 180 days before date of check-in, whereas off-site visitors may make their FPRs 180 days before date of visit. Just like how ADRs are handled, but with a 60 day base instead of 180.

This is still under development though and things may change, but that's how it's looking at the moment.

Thank you for explaining!

 

[Shaden]

Because testing can find other technical issues not related to availability or load issues.

Using the Theme Park example above, if in that 100 people testing, they found that their log ride couldn't handle all 4 seats full, but could handle 3, it would be an acceptable result (well, the result is acceptable as a result, they'd want to fix it of course) of said test.

It's all about what they're looking for in said test. For the current round of testing, I'd venture to guess that they're looking for Ease of Use issues, RFID/Magic Band issues (especially relating to ticketing and holding the data for the FP+), Access Point issues (issues with the points at the attractions communicating with the central system), and Application issues (using the MDX App/Kiosks to access and alter FP times).

With such a limited test, they're certainly NOT looking for any reliable data on availability of FP+s or anything related to the 60+10 booking. They'd need a MUCH larger sample size engaged in the testing MUCH earlier than they're doing this round.

I'd actually expect another round of testing near the end of the cycle that does focus on this and is a much broader sample group (including off-site to make sure that things work well for that combination) engaged much earlier than their planned trips. This would also serve as a "load test" of sorts to insure that the internal network as well as the system itself could potentially handle the larger load of closer to production levels they expect.

(Note: Most of this is supposed via my knowledge of software testing in general rather than Disney practices. In other words, this would be the RIGHT way to do it and the way that I would structure the testing phases if I were in control.)

That's a great response actually, basically mirrors my own thoughts, although not from software testing

Although again, this system wont be fully understood until it goes live, or at least has a much larger sample size, although I have been trying to figure out a way to simulate real world conditions, but I can't while the other systems are up and running.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Because testing can find other technical issues not related to availability or load issues.

Using the Theme Park example above, if in that 100 people testing, they found that their log ride couldn't handle all 4 seats full, but could handle 3, it would be an acceptable result (well, the result is acceptable as a result, they'd want to fix it of course) of said test.

It's all about what they're looking for in said test. For the current round of testing, I'd venture to guess that they're looking for Ease of Use issues, RFID/Magic Band issues (especially relating to ticketing and holding the data for the FP+), Access Point issues (issues with the points at the attractions communicating with the central system), and Application issues (using the MDX App/Kiosks to access and alter FP times).

With such a limited test, they're certainly NOT looking for any reliable data on availability of FP+s or anything related to the 60+10 booking. They'd need a MUCH larger sample size engaged in the testing MUCH earlier than they're doing this round.

I'd actually expect another round of testing near the end of the cycle that does focus on this and is a much broader sample group (including off-site to make sure that things work well for that combination) engaged much earlier than their planned trips. This would also serve as a "load test" of sorts to insure that the internal network as well as the system itself could potentially handle the larger load of closer to production levels they expect.

(Note: Most of this is supposed via my knowledge of software testing in general rather than Disney practices. In other words, this would be the RIGHT way to do it and the way that I would structure the testing phases if I were in control.)

That all makes sense. And I agree that much early info is likely more about technical issues. However, they are asking survey and focus group questions like: "how would you feel about FP+ if we eliminated existing FP"? So they are trying to make SOME headway in the satisfaction department, though it's not solid data like it is wrt technical issues.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Or the doom and gloom posts could inspire someone to voice their concerns directly to Disney where it might actually matter as opposed to sitting back and waiting to see what happens. Which is what happened in my case. The discussions here inspired me to be proactive and write in. Hopefully others will too.

That's a REALLY good point -- hadn't thought about it that way! I'll call that the silver lining in the clouds of doom... LOL!!!

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Shaden]

LOL! First of all, I won't even repeat your first statement above -- I'll just say that this is not what I'm doing.

I, too, understand the testing process. So as a researcher, it's valuable to you for people to complain on a forum you may not even access as the researcher, rather than provide you with direct communication about their potential concerns about what they've heard about your new system?

And would you advise those testing out something you're working on / introducing to make a decision to ditch the product before you roll it out (eg this is going to be a disaster - I'm canceling my next trip)?

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

The irony that you just denied crapping on people for complaining in your first sentence, and then crapped on people for complaining in your second sentence, makes me

And several people now have called you out for "stirring the pot" and for 'valuing the opinions of those that agree with you, while squashing the opinions of those that don't', etc etc. So, if all these people think you are doing it, and you don't, chances are, you are wrong

And for the record, other people here have said similar things to you, about liking the way FP+ looks, or being hopeful, and they have not been called out.

1 - yes actually, if as a researcher someone, anyone, gives me valuable feedback on a system or a project I am testing, which suggests I should discontinue the project, and that feedback is accurate, I accept it. To do otherwise would be the same as ignoring your findings and proceeding in a manner unsupported by evidence. And that feedback might well come from a place like this, as we do know there are Disney folks around. At the very least discussions here can lead to direct feedback, as we have witnessed in this thread.

2 - The people here are also "testing out something", at the very least they are making decisions, decisions on where to spend thousands of dollars and their limited vacation/family time. I think it is totally appropriate to speculate on the conditions of and the return on those expenditures.

 

[DVCBELLE]

LOL! First of all, I won't even repeat your first statement above -- I'll just say that this is not what I'm doing.

I, too, understand the testing process. So as a researcher, it's valuable to you for people to complain on a forum you may not even access as the researcher, rather than provide you with direct communication about their potential concerns about what they've heard about your new system?

And would you advise those testing out something you're working on / introducing to make a decision to ditch the product before you roll it out (eg this is going to be a disaster - I'm canceling my next trip)?

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

But Disney DOES read these boards.

I know of situations where CMs have been disciplined based on an interaction posted on the board.

For them to have a tool available to them like this where they can get a gauge of guest concerns and plan to address them but not utilize it would be a poor use of social media.

 

[rastuso]

Right now, it's looking like off-site visitors will have the same access to FP+ as onsite visitors. The only difference is that on-site visitors may make up to 10 days of FPRs (FastPass Reservations) at 180 days before date of check-in, whereas off-site visitors may make their FPRs 180 days before date of visit. Just like how ADRs are handled, but with a 60 day base instead of 180.

This is still under development though and things may change, but that's how it's looking at the moment.

While we have seen the ONsite details in supposed official leaks, we still have seen NOTHING detailing offsite access. At least I don't believe we have. And again, any lacking details aren't by accident.

Jason

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

So, if all these people thing you are doing it, and you don't, chances are, you are doing it.

Wow -- that's quite the research you conducted in reaching this conclusion. Very thorough. A few posters vs. my entire posting history. Good job, researcher.

Sorry... I suppose you'd characterize this as "crapping on you"?

Mental note re: Shaden... done.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Shaden]

While we have seen the ONsite details in supposed official leaks, we still have seen NOTHING detailing offsite access. At least I don't believe we have. And again, any lacking details aren't by accident.

Jason

We have seen a couple, like the fact that even offsite guests should be able to use FP+ by linking their tickets to a MDX account.

BUT, the details have only created more questions. Like what about if you are getting tickets from a third party, what about people with APs, what about people with AP vouchers. How much will the +10 days for resort guests effect non-resort guests (if there really is a +10) ... etc.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

But Disney DOES read these boards.

I know of situations where CMs have been disciplined based on an interaction posted on the board.

For them to have a tool available to them like this where they can get a gauge of guest concerns and plan to address them but not utilize it would be a poor use of social media.

Agree. I said earlier I bet they do look here. But they'd be foolish not to understand the type of person they're generally reading from here -- not the typical guest by far. This is why I'M JUST GUESSING that they don't weight hyperbole on DIS the way they do their own focus groups and/or calmer letters people take the time to send them.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Shaden]

Wow -- that's quite the research you conducted in reaching this conclusion. Very thorough. A few posters vs. my entire posting history. Good job, researcher.

Sorry... I suppose you'd characterize this as "crapping on you"?

Mental note re: Shaden... done.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Man, can't imagine why anyone would think that you try to put people down ? So hard to imagine.

And btw, your account history, has nothing to do with the actions on this thread. That's like truthfully telling a police officer who pulls you over while driving 150 that could couldn't possibly be speeding because you have never sped any other time you have driven. Terrible logic.

 

[jtowntoflorida]

Honestly, the only thing I don't like about FP+ is the "planning in advance" portion. If they would just get rid of that, I'd be fine with it. I don't mind not carrying around little pieces of paper. I don't mind being able to wear a wristband instead of carrying around a card. I don't mind rides that currently don't have FP having FP, as long as those FPs could be scheduled in the park only. I don't mind the virtual nature of the FP queue. What I do mind is having to schedule one more thing in advance! We try to keep our trips as spontaneous as possible, but there's already little room for spontaneity if you want to do highly popular things. I was up at 5:00 in the morning reserving a slot for dinner at BOG so we can meet the Beast, and reserving a time to eat in Cinderella castle, because it's a tradition. I had a room at VWL booked 7 months in advance, and I'm waitlisted for BLT because that's apparently hard to get at "only" 7 months out. I bought tickets 5 months in advance to save $$ due to the price increase. Thanks to Southwest, I booked our flights this week. And now I'm sitting here, 4 months from my vacation, with everything already planned out. It's insane. I want to be able to walk into the parks, 4 months from now, and be able to have some flexibility in the order in which I do attractions without having to wait in long lines. I simply don't want to schedule a slot for two months in advance! And you can say, "Well then DON'T. It's optional!" But is it really optional if so many people are doing it that all the good rides/times are taken 60 days out? Grrrr.

 

[Cafeen]

That's a great response actually, basically mirrors my own thoughts, although not from software testing

Although again, this system wont be fully understood until it goes live, or at least has a much larger sample size, although I have been trying to figure out a way to simulate real world conditions, but I can't while the other systems are up and running.

Without shutting down the normal FP system, at least for one park, there isn't a way to provide a real world simulation. They COULD choose a park (say DHS) and announce that FP plus is going "live" there on Jan 6th*, opening up prebooking and all of that for that one park. It would provide as close to possible a real world scenario for testing (including guest impressions that it's live). However, there are downsides to doing this, such as introducing confusion caused by having 2 different FP systems in different parks. It would also fail to capture scenarios involving hopping.

*Note, this is purely hypothetical and is used to illustrate a potential solution to a testing problem. Please, for the love of God, Allah, Hypnotoad, and every other diety, do NOT take this as a date.

That all makes sense. And I agree that much early info is likely more about technical issues. However, they are asking survey and focus group questions like: "how would you feel about FP+ if we eliminated existing FP"? So they are trying to make SOME headway in the satisfaction department, though it's not solid data like it is wrt technical issues.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Marketing and PR need their research and testing as much as the tech teams do. Unfortunately, most of this data is relatively useless due to the fact that the FP system remains in place while these testers are using the FP+. Even if the testers themselves are restricted from using FP-, the fact that people from off-site and the other 16 resorts aren't on FP+ really limits the experience due to lack of competition and lack of preplanning, so much that it really skews the results to favor FP+ in general. Things will likely look considerably different once everyone has 60 day access (+10 for all 18 resorts) and demand is at least 10 times higher than the testing phase (10 is my lowball number here, I'm guessing it would be MUCH more than 10 times the demand than we see now, even scaling everything up linearly.)

Of course, I do tend to look down my nose at marketing and PR, so I may be slightly biased .

(Edit: Man, I put too much time into each post... I'm like 4 pages behind my responses now!)

While we have seen the ONsite details in supposed official leaks, we still have seen NOTHING detailing offsite access. At least I don't believe we have. And again, any lacking details aren't by accident.

Jason

Somewhat. There have been mentions that FP+ will be able to be used by Off-Site guests and that they'd participate in the prebooking process.

60+10 is a format that mirrors 180+10. Whether Disney formatted it this way or WDWMagic did, I don't know (I'm too lazy to find both posts now ), but the format suggests that it will follow a similar pattern. Otherwise, why even bother doing "+10"? It could just as easily say "60 days for on-site, 50 for off" and the effect would be relatively similar.

At least, that's my take on it .