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

Well, actually, if someone wants to join Web Platform Documentation, anyone
can just signup and start editing. The mailing list is not needed for that.
Its purpose is mainly policy and project coordination (well, management).
A wiki is a known model that is easy to grasp, I believe.


☆*PhistucK*

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:50 PM, abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
wrote:
>
> I think if someone, like 12 years old, brimming with talent and coding
> skills, wants to join WPD, it's good if we ALSO have a Facebook group. I am
> not talking about doing all the sensitive management on Facebook. I am
> totally against that, open is open. But a little work-related members-only
> group has LOTS of potential of being a good option, or a better option.
>
> No 21st person likes IRC chats or mailing-list communications, trust me.
> It has a bad UX. It has a bad reputation. And hardcore, bruised-with-life
> sort of coders always defend it. Not good.
>
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
>
>
> ---- On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 04:42:23 -0800 *PhistucK<phistuck@gmail.com
> <phistuck@gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>
> I see you love taking stuff out of context. :)
>
>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:33 PM, abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org
> > wrote:
>
> 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 The mail mechanism is VERY outdated.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? ...
>
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
>
>
> ---- On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 02:13:43 -0800 *PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com
> <phistuck@gmail.com>>* 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.
>
>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:28 AM, abhimanyu0003 <
> abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org> 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.
>
> [MEANT FOR: PAT]
> 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.
>
> ---
> </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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>