@lglen2
I share the frustration with the idea system, I teach math where there is definitely a lot of room for improvement and there has been very little in the 12 years I've been using Canvas.
But I also understand how some of the development process works.
Some ideas aren't worth developing given return on investment. They try to target the middle 60% and those high end and low end users have to look for alternatives.
Solutions need to be generic, not tailored to one specific institution; they need to be accessible; they need to make sense. Now granted, none of that applies to this particular situation; but they are things to be considered.
They want to keep the interface simple and uncluttered and not add options for everything. That leads to reduced support since they don't have to explain complicated things. They want it to just work for most people. They don't always get that right.
They need to consider future development. I was invited to Instructure's HQ in 2017 to provide my feedback. I met with some product managers at the time and one thing that stuck with me was a lack of movement on discussions was because they were planning a major overhaul. They didn't want small fixes now to break what might be coming down the line.
Some ideas are just flat out bad and should not be developed. Many come because "my other LMS did this". Canvas has spent a lot of time researching what works and people forget that "I do this because my previous LMS forced me to" not because they would really want to do it left to their own advices. This is not to say that all items that come from another LMS are bad.
You often hear about the big ideas that are going to revolutionize things. We're developing AI so that you can write develop content faster hits the current buzz-words and sounds forward-thinking. Small, unglamorous things like "we added the ability to schedule when to unpublish a page" don't attract investors.
As for not sharing the notes from the product meetings that happen, I think that's typical for any business. Unless you work for the company and were in the meeting, you're not going to fully know what was said. Hopefully they are maintaining some kind of internal documentation system so that when it comes up again, they can look back and say "we discussed this and decided against it for these reasons." I'm the longest serving full-time faculty at my school and feel like there's going to be a lot of institutional knowledge lost if I ever retire. There seems to be a really high turnover at Instructor -- most of the names I see are not people I know. In some ways, that's good because you're not tied to previous ways of thinking about things -- you know, a fresh set of eyes.
There was an effort at one time to put some of that explanation into the Community, but it was always high-level results, not detailed minutes from a meeting. Even our board of trustee meeting (open to the public) minutes don't capture the full essence of what happened. Anyway, for a while, Canvas said "we're not going to do this ever" or "we're not going to do this right now."
Regarding the script approach, you don't need access to the Canvas build. As long as you can go to Account > Settings > New Access Token, you can access them. A small JavaScript or Python script could then be written. Some institutions may lock down their machines so you cannot install software on it. While I have access to a server at work, I use a home computer for some of the code that is specific to my classes (such as fetching viewing usage from Canvas Studio).
Canvas purposefully created the API so that people could extend and access Canvas. I feel that many times that a feature could have been added to Canvas, the deciding factor was that someone could use the API to do this, so they didn't develop it. Canvas is kind of inconsistent on that. There were times where they wouldn't point anyone to the solutions I had written; then there was a time when they said (maybe not publicly) that "James has already written this, so we don't need to address it." Most recently, they are tending to think of themselves as a platform that others can build from and extend.