Date   

locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:28 am, David P. Dillard wrote:
However, he may want to include a text based version of the same reply method as well as the color coding as the use of color for system commands is not ADA compliant as visually impaired, color blind and blind users cannot interpret the colors, making their use in such a context a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabiliies Act).

 I just want to hasten to add that Mark has definitely been sensitive to accessibility issues (not that I'm implying that you're saying he's not been).

I have simply presumed that what is generated is generated in such a way that screen readers will announce things correctly and, under the web interface and using the latest version of NVDA the "Reply to Group", "Reply to Sender," and "Discard" buttons are all announced correctly.

I think I may have just found a bug with the web interface but I don't know if it's an NVDA bug or a Groups.io web coding bug, or something else.  What follows will only be meaningful to someone who is familiar with screen readers and, specifically, NVDA terminology regarding modes a user can be in with regard to a webpage.  Right now I'm in browse mode, but everything is behaving just like I'm in focus mode as far as letting me type in this box.  However, if I try to use the 'b' command to jump to the buttons while in browse mode it obviously does not work because I'm still being allowed to type in this compose box when in browse mode so the letter 'b', when typed, is not taken as a command.  I've tried toggling between browse and focus modes to see if that would make me able to use the usual single letter navigation to get to the three previously mentioned buttons, but no dice.



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

Whenever I send a response to someone offlist, I make sure that they know it by starting off every such message with, "This is private (offlist) response."

As a side benefit to a UI that has "choose recipient first, compose second," a private message could automatically start with that header or something like it. Because another problem I've seen is that when people receive an offlist response, they VERY OFTEN don't realize that it's offlist. That includes myself. Gmail still groups the response into the message thread, even if offlist, and I sometimes FREAK OUT when I see what someone has "posted," until I realize they haven't really posted it but actually sent it to me privately. Sometimes, I'll even go the group to try to respond via the web and it takes me some time before I realize their message is not there

So I see a potential huge advantage in the proposed change.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

David P. Dillard
 

Thanks so much for the positive feedback to this post.

I think a great deal in terms of this mistake being made depends on what each individual does in handling email. Keep in mind that many of the people posting to discussion groups reply from their email message and not from the web discussion group online. The owners on the discussion group network can control what is seen by someone replying to a message on the website of in this case Groups.IO. I do not believe the same owners control the message that comes up when a poster uses the reply mechanism within an email from a group within the inbox of their email account.

I am using Alpine, the newer version of Pine out of the University of Washington that Temple University makes available to users of the corporate Gmail account provided to students, faculty and staff at Temple.
This is what I see here is this message in my Alpine box.

Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?

Since Alpine email is text based, no images, icons or the like, I will not see any colored dots.

I must chose here between the two options and then the software formulates my message and I can change the recipients and modify the message until I send it. No colors here. If I use TU Mail (Gmail) instead, I can click on the word REPLY and that is my only reply option. I will need to change my recipients manually if I do not want those that Gmail selects. In other words, I suspect that any changes that Mark makes may only completely effect replies made from the web page on Groups.IO for the discussion group in question. That said, if Mark can get Gmail to return your Groups.IO messages to your account as incoming mail that lands in your sent mail box, I would not be surprised by anything he can do to make systems work better for Groups.IO users. In thinking this over, Mark could embed these options in the email message that comes into my box from a Groups.IO list. However, he may want to include a text based version of the same reply method as well as the color coding as the use of color for system commands is not ADA compliant as visually impaired, color blind and blind users cannot interpret the colors, making their use in such a context a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabiliies Act).

Therefore there is much more to this than ability to read plain English. Users in a hurry may not read the plain English at all and act without knowing what their action is doing. They may be seeing variant instructions from on the web in the email message itself, unless they are clearly in the text of every group message received by email. Also without the word only, reply to sender is ambiguous. The user may assume that this link will add the sender to the list of recipients in the case where the sender has a no mail restriction for group email and not a restriction to send ones reply to the sender and no one else. This is not English reading ability, this is perception of a statement that is somewhat ambiguous. The bottom line is that anything one can try to reduce the occurance of these errors is worth trying, but it is unlikely that these mistakes will stop cccuring completely. Everyone enjoy this longer holiday weekend.


.

.



Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, J_catlady wrote:

David,
I agree with all of this. As for this:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 06:21 am, David P. Dillard wrote:

It may happen a few times a year,
 In my group of only 150 members, it is happening several times a month (conservatively).


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:15 am, J_catlady wrote:
"Deletion" is not really deletion. Locking a thread doesn't have a bearing on this that I can see.

I'm not arguing against, potentially, additional safeguards.  Based on my own decades of experience I have found the following to be true, and have come to believe it far more than I did when I first encountered it:

                            Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are just so damned ingenious.

You are correct that locking a thread is not directly relevant, I was just throwing it in because it is a power that I, as a non-moderator, know that moderators do have.  I also agree about deletion if a group is both e-mail and forum, and I presume all groups.io groups are.  Which raises an interesting question (if it's not already possible, I don't know):  Can a group on Groups.io be set up to be strictly e-mail list, strictly online forum, or hybrid?   If not, that might be something to consider as a later upgrade.  It would also make the deletion option much more relevant for "online forum only" format - as one can expunge the "official record" relatively quickly - often before most group members even see something if the request to moderator comes in and is acted on in very short order.

As a final note, when it comes to posting you might be surprised just "how average" I've been over the months in terms of making the "Send to Group" rather than "Send to Sender" mistake.  I can state, unequivocally for myself, that having clear visual relief between the buttons for each purpose now has had a positive impact in preventing my doing that on at least one occasion.

Brian - also "handwritten" due to sig bug



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Duane
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:

             For moderated groups I would presume that the moderator
has not only the power to lock a given thread, but to remove it, or to remove
individual posts.  If not, this is something that should be implemented.

Brian
Moderated or not, the owner (or properly permissioned moderators) can do all of those things on a group.

Duane


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

Brian,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:

you can't say that something that's visually more distinctive "won't work" until its tried.

 I'm not saying it won't work. I'm saying it sounds to me like another band-aid. It certainly can't hurt. If I were Mark, I would roll this out immediately and STILL consider the option being discussed here. 

 while it may be "modifiable" will never be solvable.  

Of course not. We're talking about fallible human beings. But we want to make it as unlikely as possible for them to make a mistake. i don't think the present UI does that.

anyone who is even thinking about posting anything that even might possibly expose something involving someone else, that is private, and that could precipitate legal liability really had ought to be thinking about that and responsible for their own actions.  

Of course they should, and I think for the most part, they do. (Legalities are not a problem in my own particular group, BTW, but that's irrelevant.) All the more reason for the system itself to make it harder for them to make a mistake. People are always going to be fallible. You're making my point for me. :-) The system should help them out. 

For moderated groups I would presume that the moderator has not only the power to lock a given thread, but to remove it, or to remove individual posts. 

Even in unmoderated groups like mine, mods can always do this. But the posts are still in every email subscriber's email inbox. "Deletion" is not really deletion. Locking a thread doesn't have a bearing on this that I can see.

--

J (handwritten signature;)



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

P.S.  I think the wording on the "Send to Sender" button should be changed to "Private Msg to Sender Only" or "Private Msg to Sender" immediately, if not sooner.  Definitely before the roll-out.

I've never liked the "Send to Sender" and I do think, particularly for newbies, it's vague.

I even think that "Reply to Group" is better than "Send to Group" for the button intended for that purpose, but that's already been taken care of.
--
Brian

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


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 08:23 am, J_catlady wrote:
EDIT: I think you were referring here to the blue and green buttons. I think the point still applies. I don't think rolling it out is the solution. Are you then going to do do some sort of statistics, and how long do you wait, before deciding it did (or did not) solve the problem and try the proposed solution instead?

 J,

           First, you can't say that something that's visually more distinctive "won't work" until its tried.

           Second, given my years and years on all sorts of forums I can tell you that this problem, while it may be "modifiable" will never be solvable.  The problem is that people just don't pay attention to what they're doing.  Even with "Are you sure?" type blockades I've seen instances of people replying in public when they didn't mean to because they *just* *don't* *pay* *attention*.

            Third, and it does not apply to you or your group, specifically, anyone who is even thinking about posting anything that even might possibly expose something involving someone else, that is private, and that could precipitate legal liability really had ought to be thinking about that and responsible for their own actions.  It's not that I don't believe in safeguards, but I have become convinced that most of this kind of thing is due to operator obliviousness (and I hasten to add that's not always stupidity).

             What I'd actually love to see implemented is a "call back" option, not unlike one can use in Gmail, where one sets a delay of one's choosing, up to 30 seconds (I think) - it's been a long time since I set mine, where an "Undo Send" link is presented as a float-over after sending something, unless you send something else within that time, they don't stack.  I haven't used this often, but I've used it often enough over the years to recognize its value.  Most times I have a, "&%#*, I didn't mean to do that!!," reaction it happens within a second or two of hitting the button.

             For moderated groups I would presume that the moderator has not only the power to lock a given thread, but to remove it, or to remove individual posts.  If not, this is something that should be implemented.

Brian



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 08:27 am, J_catlady wrote:
That would be a PITA. In our group (and perhaps most groups?), the default is "reply to group."  

 Yeah it would be a PITA and we'd never opt for it      in our moderated groups. It was just a thought for groups where there may be serious legal implications with a mistake group reply. Because any solution will bring with it the possibility of human error. So if there are no mods to catch that in pending, maybe an extra optional feature for those groups is something to think about. 

Maria




locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

David,

I agree with all of this. As for this:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 06:21 am, David P. Dillard wrote:

It may happen a few times a year,

 In my group of only 150 members, it is happening several times a month (conservatively).



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Duane
 

The different color buttons are in the "test" version. You can change back and forth with "normal" using the page at https://groups.io/test You'll want to bookmark it if you use it because there's no link on the site.

Duane


locked Re: Edit title and body

 

Only a moderator should be able to edit the title

Yes, because a title attaches to a thread, not an individual message.

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 07:13 am, HR Tech wrote:
an optional extra level of security that the admin can require users to agree to each time they select "reply to group"?

That would be a PITA. In our group (and perhaps most groups?), the default is "reply to group."  



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 
Edited

Brian,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 07:15 am, Brian Vogel wrote:

since it's been there I've not done a single accidental "reply to group" when I meant to "reply to sender."

You're not the average Groups.io user. You've said yourself that you're not moderating a group here. If you were, you would be seeing this problem, and you'd see the people who do it chagrined and mortified that they sent a private message to the group, or that their message to the group "didn't go through" and then complaining to the moderator, etc.

(p.s. missing signature bug came back?)

EDIT: I think you were referring here to the blue and green buttons. I think the point still applies. I don't think rolling it out is the solution. Are you then going to do do some sort of statistics, and how long do you wait, before deciding it did (or did not) solve the problem and try the proposed solution instead?



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

ro-esp
 

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 05:22 pm, HR Tech wrote:


Hi Mark

I really LOVE the way it is now. I think the green and blue buttons,
with"reply to group" or "reply to sender" written on them are simple and self
explanatory.
"send to sender" and "send to group" are self-explanatory for those who understand english, but I don't see a green button.
Is that limited to the "mobile" version?

groetjes, Ronaldo


locked Re: Edit title and body

Duane
 

Only a moderator should be able to edit the title, but everyone should be able to edit their own posts.

Duane


locked Edit title and body

Benoît Dumeaux <dread_axefr@...>
 

Edit could be give the opportunity to change title and body in same time.


locked Re: Tag and edit topic subject

Benoît Dumeaux <dread_axefr@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 05:28 am, HR Tech wrote:
So we can encourage users to hashtag with available moderator defined hashtags
or we can add them to a post in pending of after the fact easily without
having to recall what the available hashtags are in a our group.
It's exactly that!


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

David P. Dillard
 

Brian, this is the clearest wording I have seen

""Private Msg to Sender Only""



Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu




On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, Brian Vogel wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 07:13 am, HR Tech wrote:


I wanted to share that because for those of us who are seasoned group users so much feels intuitive. Whereas this person was saying that it should say "Private message" or something else in order for him to "get" that it would generate on offline comment. I would never have thought of that. Maybe it's relevant - maybe it's not... but worth sharing.



 We were typing at the same time, and with no coordination between us, and the phrase "private message" showed up because, other than on Groups.io, there is not a single forum on which I participate that this is not the terminology used when an off-list reply, only to the sender, is being made.



It actually might be a good idea to change the wording on the "Reply to Sender" button to "Private Msg to Sender Only" or similar.  The fact that it goes via e-mail rather than a true PM system is irrelevant, at least to me.



Brian


.


.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 07:13 am, HR Tech wrote:
I wanted to share that because for those of us who are seasoned group users so much feels intuitive. Whereas this person was saying that it should say "Private message" or something else in order for him to "get" that it would generate on offline comment. I would never have thought of that. Maybe it's relevant - maybe it's not... but worth sharing.

 We were typing at the same time, and with no coordination between us, and the phrase "private message" showed up because, other than on Groups.io, there is not a single forum on which I participate that this is not the terminology used when an off-list reply, only to the sender, is being made.

It actually might be a good idea to change the wording on the "Reply to Sender" button to "Private Msg to Sender Only" or similar.  The fact that it goes via e-mail rather than a true PM system is irrelevant, at least to me.

Brian