W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Re: We need a more UI-friendly group

From: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan.garbee@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:12:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CANQy2y1gXDcCVtCgOgzj=j+ruTP4WozxQWCFez9ThrYAp6D7DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Here is the main problem with a "superior" Facebook group as you put it.
There are people like myself who once were very involved. Now
unfortunately, I don't have much time for being active here as I once was,
however I still keep up with the mailing list to have some idea of how
things are going. I don't have a Facebook account. So any conversation had
there, would remain there unless someone then comes to the mailing list and
mirrors it (then messes happen.)

If you want to make a group on any platform to get together and discuss
things with other WPD contributors, you are free to do so no problems
there. However, for the primary discussion about anything management wise,
should be done in this mailing list. It is vendor-neutral, universal, and
not out of anyones way who would really care to contribute to management in
my opinion. On top of that, it is also indexible by search engines which
Facebook groups and other things like it are not or are difficult to search

There are also other logistical reasons for not moving. Simply because you
can write a few pages on why the move would be good and how things would be
managed, doesn't mean it makes sense for the community as a whole.
Reasoning and logic goes a long way for sure, but in the end we also need
to consider the actual effort of contributors and maintainers and where
their energy is best to focus. Right now, we need more focus of energy into
the docs, not finding some other way to handle discussions that will cause
more problems.

I strongly urge against moving discussions into something that is:
1) Not indexible.
2) Not open (vendor-neutral).
3) Requires yet another account anywhere (even with ourselves, although I
know Renoir has worked very hard on getting SSO all patched up.)

On Sat Dec 13 2014 at 4:29:23 AM abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>

> I understand the usefulness and reasoning behind choosing Open. I also
> understand being vendor-independent. But in all mannerisms, I think a
> Facebook group is more suitable, not just because of the UX improvement,
> but more. For the more, I will surely chat with you.
> Hi. I think I couldn't make myself much clear, as most points you've
> reiterated were already answered.
> Well, first, I like how you quote things. Please tell me how to do that.
> Now, I would again elaborate.
> Yes that's my mail client's problem. Of course people using Thunderbird on
> Ubuntu are a handful, but we still matter. So, here's the first flaw of the
> mail system. When I reply, the reply's To address is the address of the
> person who sends the email. You have to manually add the mailing list
> address. (I now use Reply All, which works fine, but I had to learn it
> myself. Beep. Bad for UX!)
> "They disappear off the Timeline". This time, kindly read it with full
> attention.
> Just like how you have to open your mail by going to gmail.com, the
> person will have to open the group (say facebook.com/groups/xyz) or
> navigate to it by clicking on the XYZ name which will be shown on the left
> (better and more probable scenario). Everything is equal right? You DO HAVE
> to open the interface: the group or webmail.
> Now, all the posts are there. There's a little button in each group,
> clicking on which you can receive ALL notifications from that group. So
> this works just like the mail system. You open Facebook, you're notified.
> You open email, you're notified.
> PLUS, some posts which get hot (more discussed, commented, or popular)
> ALSO appear on the common News Feed (Timeline is your personal "wall",
> nothing goes there). In the main home feed, popular posts are showed. WHICH
> Let's round it up: 1. You get all notifications, you can see ALL posts
> when you visit the group too. 2. You ALSO get to see popular posts in your
> main integrated feed, your homepage of Facebook.
> I never meant "index Facebook". Why the hell would I suggest that? I said
> it's not important. I guess you had another confusion here.
> Facebook supports automatic archiving. Once posted, nothing is deleted
> from the Web. Search engines cannot index that. But archives are present
> that can be accessed from Facebook itself.
> I understand what you mean by being open and public here. On Facebook
> however, we're in fact being more public. No public or social person, a
> non-technical guy, has even used search engines to crawl out email
> messages. However, he has more, and MUCH MORE, chances of finding our
> content if we're publishing in an Open-privacy Facebook group, because 85%
> of people who can afford computers, basic software, and internet are on
> Facebook. I want you to pay special attention to this point please.
> Pages are a different story. Groups can be "subscribed" to. Like sending
> an email to the subscription address to subscribe to this mailing list, on
> Facebook, people have to "Join" the group and click on the button that
> reads "Subscribe". Not much difference, okay? If email can be YOUR native
> interface of communication, Facebook can be so for 85% of people, don't
> overlook that fact. Don't think email are more down-to-earth, "real" faces
> of Internet. Web is the real face of Internet.
> You CAN search in Facebook GROUP, the thing we're talking about. Not your
> Facebook account, but the damn group for God's sake. There's a bar on
> top-right, that says "SEARCH". Enter your query and press enter. Done. Or
> click on the magnifying glass, that works too.
> Your personal concern is fully valid, but yet you fail to acknowledge the
> great UI improvement I'm proposing. Don't be a hypocrite. You say "I
> believe my personal concern is valid" and "I am describing a usability and
> workflow concern." then why do you, out-of-hand, dismiss the fact that
> Facebook is more efficient in terms of usability and workflow? At least
> accept that. Also, more user-friendly, intuitive, modern, next-generation
> Web-stuff (that we advocate: learning of best practices, not engineering of
> email protocols).
> Saying you don't see any purpose to respond further clearly tells me that
> you don't have any crucial counter-argument to my proposal.
> Thank you for your time. If you still cannot get around any of the
> argument I've provided for your points, feel free to email again.
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
> ---- On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:36:56 -0800 *Pat Tressel <ptressel@myuw.net
> <ptressel@myuw.net>>* wrote ----
> Right here, I had to compose a new email, add p-wp@w3.. address, add your
> address (Pat), and add a subject before I could even start typing. I don't
> think this feeling is very great.
> Sounds like you could use a better email client...  I'm just using the
> ordinary web Gmail client, and not having those problems.  There is no need
> to add individuals who respond to your post to the To list as (clearly)
> they are subscribed to the mailing list.  Just keep the mailing list name
> as the To.
> Well, all things you've mentioned can be counter-argued or criticised. So,
> kindly read along.
> Facebook archives will also be permanently available.
> Sorry, but they disappear off the timeline.  Do you mean we should run
> some sort of scraper and copy them out to where search engines can get at
> them?  Search engines cannot crawl FB -- that would be a serious breach of
> privacy.
> There's no indexing I see of our emails either.
> They are public, not robotted out, and are indexed by the usual web search
> engines.
> Facebook doesn't deliver anything.
> Exactly the problem I noted.
> In the group (like I have to open my mail account, you have to open the
> Facebook group, nothing different), you can see all posts. Further, you'll
> get notified of each new post.
> I do not get notified on all posts from FB pages that I do follow.  I only
> get a selection of posts, generally for events.
> The Timeline thing you said is rather an advantage. The popular and more
> discussed posts of the group WILL ALSO BE SHOWN on members' Timelines, a
> bonus.
> If you have to search for the mail in your inbox, you have to search for
> the post in the group.
> I cannot search in FB.  I can search -- with a *search query*, like web
> search -- in my own email. I can also do a search in the mailing list
> archive using a web search engine.
> You say if there are lots of communities you have to see and one option is
> to have them as Facebook groups and other option is to have emails coming
> from them. Please do not confuse me. We're talking about taking WPD's work
> communication on Facebook, we're not dealing with a client and her problem
> with multiple groups she has to look at. I have fifteen groups on Facebook
> that I actively participate in and just four mailing lists. Yet, the
> mailing lists are more messy and a pathetic excuse in the name of user
> interface.
> I believe my personal concern is valid, and dismissing it out of hand as
> irrelevant is not a good way to have an engineering discussion.  I am
> describing a usability and workflow concern.
> Your gripe
> Ok, I see there is no purpose for me to respond further.  I am not the one
> with the "gripe", and you are imputing to me opinions that I do not hold.
> Your problems with email appear to stem from use of a defective email
> client that does not thread nor properly handle return addresses.
> -- Pat
Received on Saturday, 13 December 2014 10:12:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:09 UTC