locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:25 am, J_catlady wrote:
The reason I include the specification of the recipient is because I envision a general PM function that can be used elsewhere besides the "reply to forum post" context. In other scenarios, the explicit designation of the recipient is important. So I lump it together.

And this is where we differ somewhat, and I definitely differ from the other proposals.  While I can envision use in other scenarios, when it comes to a web-based forum or very forum-like medium, the user should not be the one doing the explicit addressing, the responding mechanism itself is what assigns that.  These contexts are not e-mail and have no real reason to be e-mail-like.

If you're trying to send a private message to a member, that would be triggered by clicking *something* associated with that member.  If you're trying to report to moderators there should be a "Report" function.  If you're trying to reply to the group there should be a reply function.

Unlike you, I do believe that the central importance here is playing into habit/convention, regardless of how that convention came to be.  There exist conventions that really felt almost wholly "unnatural" at the outset, but once they became established widely enough that didn't matter - people know them and follow them almost instinctively.  People (and animals in general) are creatures of habit, and good design plays into established habits as strongly as it possibly can when those habits actually achieve desired ends.  In this case they do.  One can and should fight them if new behavior patterns are desired, but in this case they aren't.

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray

Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.