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

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

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:38:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CABc02_KiFvamms_SFC_7WVmMtReJLAJDZ3t1MmeBwMv7QvOvpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
Cc: WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
May I help you somehow, then? :)


☆*PhistucK*

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
wrote:
>
> Oh yeah, I completely forgot that. I'm sorry. It's for other purposes.
> Yeah bad example sorry. But take me, I haven't edited much. Because I need
> help and seniors and this mailing systems discourages me from even opening
> WPD sometimes... (Somewhere the word UX echoes five times...)
>
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
>
>
> ---- On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 04:53:31 -0800 *PhistucK<phistuck@gmail.com
> <phistuck@gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 13 December 2014 13:39:18 UTC

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