Only Creators and above can access WebEditor now. Who is WebEditor intended for?

[Scott_Sambell]

Who is WebEditor intended for?  If you are a creator, you have access to Pro (which is not something you can even opt out of now!) Mobile workers need a desktop editor to enter data when they are in the office, on their computers.  WebEditor was the perfect solution. It was Field Maps in a browser. They loved it.  Now the only people that we know of that actually had a use for it can't access it anymore.  I can't think of one case where someone with an ArcPro licence would use WebEditor, but literally thousands of cases of everyday data editors who have been crying out for this tool. And then it got taken away from them.

Can anyone explain this logic to me?  

[ChristopherCounsell]

It's unlikely that Esri will engage in discussions like this but I'll do my best to answer.

Personally I think it's a bit of a communications misstep from Esri. They would actually have a userbase for this product but failed to recognize that it invites direct comparison to Map Viewer and there'd be a local of feedback.

The target audience would be:

• GIS professionals that need to make detailed edits in browser (without having to launch ArcGIS Pro). Not enough to drive the need for this product so it's more likely:
• Office-based staff that undertake a lot of detailed or powerful editing workflows, but don't necessarily have the need or skills for ArcGIS Pro.

The target audience is not ArcGIS Field maps users. They have access to Map Viewer and its apps for a similar editing experience to in the field.

Who are all these office based staff? It's likely utilities companies. The ArcGIS Utility Network is going through massive uptake and it is pushing development across the ArcGIS platform. For example, branched versioning. They would have a range of office based users - admins, engineers, data entry people - looking for advanced capabilities in the web browser such as network tracing or detailed editing. These companies have a hard time installing software, training staff, or don't want to pay for a full Pro licence, just to create a substation or network valve.

A good example of this is that supported all of the following on its first Web Editor release: group and preset templates, Utility Network Trace, contingent values and attribute rules, detailed editing and branch versioning. All core components of a Utility Network.

There could be other organizations with heavy editors - they've clearly identified a market between field data level editing but not quite needing ArcGIS Pro. I've seen this, where Map Viewer doesn't cut it and Creator licence and Web Editor would be more cost effective than Pro.

They've indicated that functionality - like better editing - will end up in the Map Viewer and other apps. So others will benefit from this focused development, as Web Editor gets more specific and capable for their intended audiences.

If you want licencing changes for this product vote for the idea below and make sure to add a comment why. Don't just demand it - better to say we have X users who would need this as Map Viewer doesn't cut it. It'll go further.

https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-web-editor-ideas/make-web-editor-available-to-mobile-workers/id...

[RichardHowe]

Interesting insight @ChristopherCounsell I still say they've missed the point/dropped the ball. My idea, that you referenced, is, by some margin, the most interacted with and upvoted on the whole web editor forum. It would seem strange to me if ESRI had such a massive uptake of users, or even a supposedly huge market from these utility companies that none of said users have found there way here. I would love to see their usage stats.

[ChristopherCounsell]

Non-gis office staff aren't going to contribute to these conversations. Most GIS people don't actively participate in the forums. 

It's like talk back radio. There's a vocal minority. We have to assume there's some logic to decisions and we as consumers may never be privy to it. I personally see some rationale but think it's a misstep with product placement and comms. But I can see what's good. There's functionality coming and other parts of the platform. There's strong community feedback. They're listening. What's important is how we go about it. I'm glad to see genuine and reasonable discourse. I love ideas getting support. For this question (who's the audience) in my experience staff won't weigh in directly on potentially sensitive topics in a public forum and that's fair enough.

There used to be two licence levels. Viewer and creator. Feedback gave us more options including the mobile worker. It can get confusing for admins, and they don't always get the balance right... But I think it's a similar example to this one where feedback is important.

So yeah, to have functionality paywalled is frustrating, and I hope they find balance again. But I've had the good fortune to meet and work with a lot of end users across the globe. You would be surprised at the organisation licencing requirements going around. Especially these days... All about empowering the non-gis staff.