1. 7

  2. 2

    I’m sorry if I’m being dense or missing something, but how is this better than something like RRWeb or one of the SaaS alternatives? An entire browser dedicated to session recording feels like a huge ask to collect bug reports from end users.

    1. 4

      Hi, the difference here is in the level of detail of data being collected. RRWeb records DOM mutations, and other tools generally record screen videos and/or console messages. This is only a small fraction of what is going on in the browser, and for example none of these tools can show all the JS that is running or how it affects the page. Web Replay records absolutely everything the browser does. When debugging a recording developers can see everything that happened when the recording was made, as if they were debugging a tab on their own machine. This takes the guesswork out of the bug reporting process.

      Asking users to download a browser to submit a bug report is definitely a big ask, and this product is a better fit for developers and dedicated QA staff. Still, we feel that after developers have some experience tracking bugs down with Web Replay (especially by using its time traveling features), other tools will feel pretty limited and asking users to download the browser and submit recordings won’t seem like such a stretch.

      1. 1

        Thanks for the clarification!

        Tiny nit: For what it’s worth, if you’re involved in the project, a small piece of feedback for the marketing site is to include any kind of one liner or project description on the home page. I think there are a lot of folks like me that aren’t going to want to watch a video with sound to get context.