Co-Creation Starts with a “Seemingly Unnecessary” Question
This collaboration began with what appeared to be a trivial question.
After purchasing a 4-Port 8K 60Hz HDMI 2.1 KVM, Leslie’s first message was not a complaint or a fault report, but a cautious inquiry:
“For the purpose of testing my setup can I attach just 1 PC to the switch… may seem like an unnecessary question but I just want to cover all possibilities…”
This question itself highlighted something important:
For users, “Is it safe?” and “Do I fully understand how it works?” are just as important as performance specifications.
We confirmed that connecting only one PC is perfectly safe and would not damage the device.
But the conversation did not end there.
From a Non-Support Question to the Start of True Co-Creation
A few days later, Leslie raised a question that went beyond typical technical support:
“what is happening inside a KVM that can not support ultra wide monitors?”
He wasn’t asking whether it works, but why:
-
Is EDID formatted differently?
-
Are the protocols different?
-
Is it a bandwidth limitation, or simply more data being transmitted?
This represents a very real type of user voice: not a complaint, but a skepticism toward vague industry claims.
In responding, we for the first time systematically translated internal engineering concepts into user-understandable explanations, including:
-
EDID base block
-
Extension blocks (CTA-861 / DisplayID)
-
EDID emulation vs. pass-through
-
Bandwidth limitations vs. EDID loss
When the Customer Points Out the Direction for Growth
What truly changed us came in Leslie’s next message:
“I would recommend you add this explanation to your FAQs.” “There are KVM manufacturers that misrepresent their product claiming 21:9 that will not function.”
At that moment, we realized something critical:
The customer was not just using our product—he was helping correct the industry narrative.
He wasn’t asking us to fix a bug.
He was telling us:
-
Claims like “supports 21:9 / ultrawide” are often misleading
-
What users actually need is not just “supported or not,” but: why it may fail, and under what conditions
👉 First co-creation outcome (Service & Content) We began treating explanations of EDID behavior, ultrawide compatibility, and bandwidth limits as essential public knowledge—something that belongs in FAQs, not buried in support emails.
From Troubleshooting to Real-World System Validation
What followed completely reshaped our understanding of the user’s role.
Leslie didn’t just report issues—he provided structured, real-world test data:
-
x79 / x99 / x299 platforms
-
NVIDIA vs. AMD GPUs
-
Windows vs. SUSE Linux
-
HDMI 2.1 vs. DisplayPort
-
5120×2160 @ 180Hz / 120Hz / 60Hz
-
Behavior differences across BIOS / POST / OS stages
He ultimately derived his own conclusion:
“when the switch is connected… it is a different piece of hardware… during boot the refresh rate is reset to the native 180Hz…”
This insight did not come from us. It was something he taught us through real-world usage.
👉 Second co-creation outcome (Product & Validation) We recognized a critical edge case:
-
High refresh rate ultrawide displays
-
Combined with legacy platforms (BIOS stage)
-
Interacting with EDID pass-through
These are scenarios nearly impossible to fully replicate in lab environments.
This is not a “product failure,” but rather the boundary of product behavior in real-world conditions.
As a result, we formally added:
“legacy platforms + high-refresh ultrawide + BIOS/boot behavior with KVM in the chain”
into our internal validation scope and future design considerations.
When the Customer Defines the Next Product Direction
Through continued discussion, Leslie also identified a concrete usability gap:
“The only improvement… would be if the keyboard was active in the window to enter the BIOS.”
He went further, proposing actionable improvements:
-
Keep keyboard input active during BIOS via shared USB port
-
Maintain hotkey functionality at the same time
👉 Third co-creation outcome (Product Design) This was not vague feedback—it was a direct input into next-generation product design decisions.
The Result of Co-Creation: Not Just Problem Solving, but Transformation
What we gained from this collaboration goes far beyond resolving a single issue.
Product Perspective
-
Clearer understanding of EDID pass-through limitations in edge cases
-
Recognition of “high-refresh ultrawide + legacy BIOS” as a critical scenario
-
Prioritization of HID behavior during BIOS stage in future designs
Service & Content Perspective
-
Explain why something does not work, not just whether it does
-
Translate complex technical mechanisms into actionable user knowledge
-
Avoid industry-wide “specification-driven ambiguity”
Mindset Shift
-
Customers are not “sources of problems,” but real-world test environments
-
Co-creation is not about us helping users— it is about users pushing us to become more precise, transparent, and professional
