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

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

From: abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 04:33:31 -0800
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Cc: Pat Tressel <ptressel@myuw.net>, WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-ID: <14a439d8eed.11f05b76175180.6852399803912136669@japanaddicts.org>
But if you try to see this, you will know how productive a Facebook group can be. It can accelerate work, encourage cooperation and interconnectivity, and give others aids (let's forget about those aids). It can really super charge the work environment. Only if we start with an unofficial, small group for a testing period, you'll see the change. If I create, with suppose five others, a similar group, then I don't think it'll be that productive, but if we try, then it can be really good for everybody, including new members. Suppose this very debate (or whatever) had to take place there. There would have been a single post, with comments. The mail mechanism is VERY outdated. The benefits of Facebook far outnumber the benefits of mailing-list communication.

I propose that we try a one-month beta period or something. I'm not trying to drain the energy into finding a substitute community. I just want us to be more productive. I'm not Facebook addict myself. I open my account once per two days because I'm too busy with my website, but I used to work for a content writing company that used WhatsApp for its communication. It was like hell. (I am not saying WhatsApp=Emails) but when they made a Facebook group, the work accelerated. There are scientific reasons behind this. I cannot explain them because English isn't my first language, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about. So is there ANY scope? I know what you (most of you) feel about Facebook. I did the same. In fact, I even deactivated my accounts. But we don't have to be like those people whom we usually envision as being Facebook users. We can be confined to ourselves, yet using a more efficient portal.

I used to feel like that about JavaScript when I read a book on web design. I could only code CSS HTML. But the real fun is when we really try. Now I can even do shell scripting. I have a lot more examples. I hated Webmaster Tools (okay this one is weird) but now I love it. Somewhere deep inside, I sense you guys have quite a bit of distrust, unfamiliarity, or a sense of discomfort and heavy-chaos with Facebook with all that fancy PHP and styles. And you say plain text is better. May I then ask that why are we writing WPD then if we prefer text so much over PHP and JavaScript? ...


---- On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 02:13:43 -0800 PhistucK &lt;phistuck@gmail.com&gt; wrote ---- 

The fact that it is only indexed by Facebook and other search engines are not allowed to index it is a major flaw. I have a choice of using my GMail (or any other mail client that has the ability to search) search (assuming I subscribed from the beginning), or any other search engine to find discussions in the group.
With your proposal, I am locked to Facebook (and its particular search abilities). Also, not everyone has or uses Facebook. I, for one, have a Facebook account, but I rarely go there. I realize I am not the majority, of course, but why do I have to create or maintain a Facebook account to discuss web platform documentation?
Facebook is also much heavier (to load and interact) than these almost plain text mailing lists.

I feel your issue can be solved with a bot that posts everything in the mailing list to Facebook. And if Facebook has some API for getting posts and comments from the group, then it can be a full duplex situation, where posts posted on the Facebook group would also reach the mailing list.


On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:28 AM, abhimanyu0003 &lt;abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org&gt; wrote:[MEANT FOR: RENOIR]
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 IS A BONUS.

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.


---- On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:36:56 -0800 Pat Tressel &lt;ptressel@myuw.net&gt; 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 12:33:58 UTC

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