You started with GitHub Issues because it made sense. You're already on GitHub for code. Issues are right there. Free. Simple.
Your first few clients figured it out. Then you got a client who doesn't know what GitHub is. Gets confused by labels and milestones. Needs to create an account just to report a bug. Opens the repo and sees your entire code structure and gets completely overwhelmed.
Now you're spending 20 minutes teaching them how to use GitHub Issues instead of spending those 20 minutes fixing their actual bug.
GitHub Issues is great for developer teams. Everyone's already on GitHub. Everyone understands pull requests and branches and markdown formatting. Issues tie directly to code changes. The integration with your dev workflow is seamless.
But that's the problem: it's built for developers, not clients.
What clients see in GitHub Issues versus what they need to see:
Clients open GitHub and see: pull requests, branches, commit history, code files, markdown formatting, labels like "needs-review" and "tech-debt," discussions between team members about implementation details.
Clients want to see: their bugs, current status, nothing else.
The friction starts immediately with account creation. Client reports a bug via email. You ask them to create a GitHub account so they can track it properly. They create the account two days later. Forget the password. You reset it for them. They submit the bug. They never log in again. Every future bug comes via email because logging into GitHub is too much hassle.
You're back to email bug reports, except now you also maintain a GitHub Issues board that clients don't use.
The video problem is worse. Client types in GitHub Issues: "The checkout button is in the wrong place and when I click it nothing happens."
You have no idea which page they're on, which button they're talking about, what "wrong place" means, or what browser they're using. You need 5 follow-up questions to understand what they mean.
With a 30-second video, you'd see everything immediately. But GitHub Issues doesn't have built-in video support. Client would need to record a Loom video, upload it somewhere, paste the link, hope you see it.
Most clients just... don't. They send vague text descriptions and you spend hours figuring out what they mean.
GitHub Issues exposes your entire workflow to clients. They see your internal labels (P0, P1, critical, tech-debt, needs-review). They see your dev notes like "TODO: refactor this mess" or "hack for now, fix later." They see discussions between team members about implementation approaches. They see code references that mean nothing to them.
None of this helps them. They just want to know: did you see my bug report? Are you working on it? Is it fixed yet?
The notification problem makes it worse. Client gets notified about every comment, every label change, every pull request that mentions the issue, every commit that references it. They're drowning in notifications about internal development process when they just want one notification: "Your bug is fixed."
This is why we built Lantern—to give clients a simple portal that shows only what they need to see. No code, no internal process, just their bugs and status updates.
When GitHub Issues actually makes sense for client work:
If your client is another developer or technical agency, GitHub Issues is fine. They understand the interface. They're comfortable with markdown. They probably want to see the code changes anyway.
If you're building an open source project together, GitHub Issues is the right choice. The whole point is transparency into the development process.
If the client lives on GitHub already for their own work, sure, keep using it.
But if your client is non-technical? If you have 3+ different clients? If bugs need video demonstrations or screenshots? If you want clean separation between your internal development work and client-facing communication? You need something else.
What actually works for non-technical clients:
The tool needs to be dead simple. No account creation hassle (or if accounts are required, the signup process takes 30 seconds). Built-in support for Loom videos or screen recordings. Status system that's obvious: not started, in progress, done. Email notifications that actually make sense. Interface with zero development jargon.
Lantern does this—clients get a simple portal, paste Loom links to show bugs, get notifications when things are fixed. No training required. Linear does it too if you're already invested in their ecosystem, though at $8 per user per month, adding 5 clients means you're paying $480 per year just for them to report bugs. Trello sort of works for simple projects, though it's too basic for real bug tracking and clients can accidentally mess up your carefully organized board.
The hybrid approach that actually works in practice:
Keep GitHub Issues for internal development. Bugs your team finds, feature requests, technical debt, implementation discussions—all that stays in GitHub where it belongs.
Use a dedicated bug tracker for client-facing communication. Client bugs, change requests, support issues—all that goes in the client-facing tool where clients can actually use it.
Clean separation. Your team works in GitHub like normal. Clients never see GitHub. You never spend another minute teaching non-technical people how to use developer tools.
The cost comparison people don't talk about:
GitHub Issues is free, sure. But you're spending 20 minutes per client teaching them how to use it. Then 10+ hours per month managing issues, answering questions about the interface, explaining what labels mean, resetting passwords. Client satisfaction is medium because they find the whole thing confusing but they make it work.
A tool like Lantern costs $15.50 per month. Clients understand it immediately (takes 2 minutes to explain: "paste a Loom video, we'll fix it"). You spend maybe 3 hours per month on bug management total. Client satisfaction is high because the system just makes sense to them.
You save 7 hours per month. At $50 per hour, that's $350 saved. The tool costs $15.50. It pays for itself 28 times over.
What to actually do:
Keep GitHub Issues for what it's great at: internal development work with your technical team.
Add a proper client-facing bug tracker for what GitHub Issues is terrible at: letting non-technical clients report bugs.
The hybrid approach takes 5 minutes to set up and immediately reduces friction. Clients stop asking "how do I use GitHub again?" You stop explaining it. Everyone's happier.
Try Lantern free for 14 days and see if the separation makes sense for your workflow. If it doesn't save you time, cancel. But I'd bet you'll never go back to making clients use GitHub Issues.
Keep GitHub for code. Use Lantern for clients. Takes 5 minutes to set up.