Date   

locked Searching the archives

Carlos
 

Is it possible to perform complex searches in group archives?  I.E. Searching by subject, message body, author, and so on.  If so, how is this accomplished?


locked Bug report: approving members via the web interface using screen readers

hannah day <tiggerfan23@...>
 

Hello everyone.

I am submitting a bug report as I suspect something is wrong with approving members via the web interface using a screen reader. In this report, the latest NVDA as of today and Windows 10 was used. The browser used was the latest Firefox as of today.

Please try to duplicate the following.

1. In any of your own groups or groups you moderate and have been given permission to approve/reject new members, click on members, then pending.

2. Try to check (tick) one or more checkboxes (tickboxes). Click action and accept the verification by clicking yes.

3. In my case, the status from "pending" to "approved" never happened.

So in the end, I had to click on the member's email address, and click "approve pending sub" button.

If this is in fact not a bug, but a user error on my part, please accept my sincere apologies, especially for wasting your time. I'm not trying to make excuses here, but I cannot always comprehend with text on web pages for example. So what might make total sense for one doesn't necessarily make total sense for me.

For now though, thank you in advance for attempting to reproduce this. I look forward to any responses.

Kindest regards
Hannah Day


locked Copy of invitation mail

Sue
 

I sent some customised invitations out just recently and I wanted my fellow mods to see exactly what I'd said. I had thought I could just point them at the invitations page but that only shows when an invitation was sent and to whom.

I see that the customisation does stay in place so they could read it there but I could foresee a need to send an invitation to one (or more) people and then reword it for another (or more) person.  Would it be viable to have a copy of the sent invitations?

Also I notice on the four that I sent the same day, two have that date showing as the date invited but the other two have the day the person actually joined ( presumably the other two were more prompt to join, hence the date matching). Date invited should remain constant really, for future reference.

In addition, whilst sometimes the default message would do, if I customise an invite I would very much like to be able to remove the default message from around my message. Is that possible or could it be made so?

Thank you,

Sue


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

And I'm agreeing but simply adding that there's good reason for the convention.:-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:26 am, Duane wrote:
So how did those practices become "standard?

 Completely irrelevant to the fact that they are "standard."   I'm not attempting to give a history lesson, but to point out that there are certain deeply ingrained conventions that really do not require reinvention, at all, because:

1.  They are incredibly widely known.

2.  They are used by most without conscious thought at this point.

3.  They do the required job beautifully.

As to Maria's assertions about Google Groups, here's a screen shot taken mere seconds ago.  It says all that needs to be said:

<googlegroups.jpg>

The options given when you hit the "Post Reply" button are Post and Discard.  The act of choosing to reply strictly limits what the nature of that interaction is.  I used Google Groups for a number of years, have been away for quite a while, and what pops up when I dropped in today is pretty consistent with what was there when last I haunted those environs.

I did not claim that absolutely, positively no one else uses what Groups.io is using now, but they are, indeed outliers.

Craigslist is not a web forum in any conventional sense of the word.  Google Groups proves my point, and we already know what Yahoo Groups does.

I'm also, like on the last thread, now out on this one.  For those who want to reinvent a wheel that definitely does not need it, knock yourselves out making your case.  Mine is based on convention, ingrained, well-known and widely employed practice, and complete utility for purpose in the environment under discussion.  There's nothing else I can say nor any stronger case I could make.


--
Brian

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


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Sue wrote, in part:  "additional option might be to forward to the moderators? I can't think of an occasion when somebody would need to cc in the mods to their reply (although I'm sure other people could come up with a situation where they would) "

Which is generally implemented with a "Report" button or link, in my experience.  Another of those things that, when present, virtually anyone except a complete newbie will recognize and understand its function.  It also prevents accidental misdirection without allowing the end-user to deal with addressing at all.

Breaking my own silence here because this is a new comment on a very old function.
--
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

Sue
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 12:01 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

To: o Group o Sender (display name), o Moderators
CC: |_| Sender (display name)
or
CC: |_| Moderators

Shal, I wonder if an additional option might be to forward to the moderators? I can't think of an occasion when somebody would need to cc in the mods to their reply (although I'm sure other people could come up with a situation where they would) but I could imagine somebody wanting to complain/discuss a particular message with the mods and rather than starting a new mail to the mods' email address, this would be a quick way for them to forward the message in question.

Sue

 


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:26 am, Duane wrote:
So how did those practices become "standard?

 Completely irrelevant to the fact that they are "standard."   I'm not attempting to give a history lesson, but to point out that there are certain deeply ingrained conventions that really do not require reinvention, at all, because:

1.  They are incredibly widely known.

2.  They are used by most without conscious thought at this point.

3.  They do the required job beautifully.

As to Maria's assertions about Google Groups, here's a screen shot taken mere seconds ago.  It says all that needs to be said:

The options given when you hit the "Post Reply" button are Post and Discard.  The act of choosing to reply strictly limits what the nature of that interaction is.  I used Google Groups for a number of years, have been away for quite a while, and what pops up when I dropped in today is pretty consistent with what was there when last I haunted those environs.

I did not claim that absolutely, positively no one else uses what Groups.io is using now, but they are, indeed outliers.

Craigslist is not a web forum in any conventional sense of the word.  Google Groups proves my point, and we already know what Yahoo Groups does.

I'm also, like on the last thread, now out on this one.  For those who want to reinvent a wheel that definitely does not need it, knock yourselves out making your case.  Mine is based on convention, ingrained, well-known and widely employed practice, and complete utility for purpose in the environment under discussion.  There's nothing else I can say nor any stronger case I could make.


--
Brian

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


locked Re: Testing the test version

Sue
 

Hmm,

Replying to myself here.

I had bookmarked the url but I'm still a bit confused. I had the test url open in another tab and when I clicked it, it took me to the page that shows my groups, using that tab to do so. This means everytime I want to flick back and forth to check what I am seeing between test and live version, I have to open another tab, go to the test url and be again moved to the my groups page.

Obviously now I know I can live with it, but that's not quite how I envisaged a 'toggle' working. Unless I'm still missing something, of course.

Sue


locked Re: Testing the test version

Sue
 

Duane,

Thank you! I didn't realise the url was the switch in itself.


Sue


locked Re: Testing the test version

Duane
 

Just go back to the same link. It will show which version you're on and allow you to switch to the other. I created a bookmark so I can find it easily.

Duane


locked Re: Testing the test version

Sue
 

Hi,

Just testing the test toggle.

Not sure if I've missed something but after clicking the link to move into the test version, then clicking around the site, I can't see any easy way to revert back to the live version except clicking the back button upteen times.

Assuming I've not missed the obvious way to do this, could there be a 'revert' button on every page or something similar, please?

Sue


locked Re: Proposal: New Reply To option

Sue
 

Mark,

I'm all behind in reading messages and this one got lost in the shuffle but huge thanks from me as this is something I've been wanting all along!

Sue


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

They became standard because they fit the closest with the actual functionality, which evolved to fit the way humans think and communicate. Private message vs forum reply. Different animals. My opinion.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Duane <txpigeon@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:


Trying to buck well established cultural practices that go well beyond any one
site and the current place and time is a mistake.
So how did those practices become "standard? I think it's because someone decided to use an unconventional way of doing things and it caught on.

Duane


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Duane
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:


Trying to buck well established cultural practices that go well beyond any one
site and the current place and time is a mistake.
So how did those practices become "standard? I think it's because someone decided to use an unconventional way of doing things and it caught on.

Duane


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:20 am, HR Tech wrote:
by web forum, you don't mean  Y! Groups, Google groups, big tent, or even craigslist, I assume.

Y!G is not a good role model (I think we can all agree on that), I personally stay away from Google groups, I've never used Big Tent so I don't know (I do know groups that have moved away from it and into Groups.io), and craigslist is not a counterexample. All it does is send a (non-replyable) notification that a post has been added to the forum.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Maria
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 08:27 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
A reply button on a web forum means, and only means, reply to the forum itself.  It has never meant "reply to the sender" and I can't find another forum that supports this.

Brian

by web forum, you don't mean  Y! Groups, Google groups, big tent, or even craigslist, I assume.

I hear what you are saying about traditional web forums that lack a mailing list function. But I think it's useful to remember that potentially a large chunk of those who come to groups.io will come here from the above mentioned platforms. Reply to sender has always been an option there and on Craigslist is even exactly what reply means.

Maria


locked Re: searching activity log for "joined" brings up blank screen #bug

Duane
 

I was looking over the log on the restricted group this morning and discovered a related problem. Not all applications are approved, so they didn't necessarily join just because they applied. I agree that there should be a record of when their application was approved and that would be used as the join date/info.

Duane


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
They both buck what is a clear general convention,

Yes, and the general convention is not *just* a convention for convention's sake.  It has become a convention because of a good reason: the psychological and functional reality that "reply" and "PM" are two separate actions.

I think the reason Groups.io and Y!G both "buck" that is because (a) they're hybrids (mailing list and forum), (b) Y!G has always been poorly designed (understatement), and (c) people are now used to Y!G and Groups.io is (to some extent) modelled on it.

To be groundbreaking, Mark could ignore (c) and do what makes more sense to human beings and the way they think. Make them separate.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

            I get what you're saying.  This is interesting because, in a completely unconnected context I was just talking about outliers, and your description of what Y!G and the current incarnation of Groups.io are both doing are just that:  outliers.

            They both buck what is a clear general convention, and just because this whole conversation has ensued it shows me just how problematic that decision really is.

            If ever there were a clearer demonstration that there should not be a mechanism that allows "compose first, choose recipient later" in a web forum context these two threads are it.

            It violates the principles that have been well and accurately discussed in regard to having made a choice regarding the "who" before composing the "what" and introduces a level of ease to screw-up that is frequently seen to be happening.

            What's even worse, and I've been very clear about my opinion on this, is that the proposed solutions are anything but.  Trying to buck well established cultural practices that go well beyond any one site and the current place and time is a mistake.  It generates confusion and frustration when "unwritten rules" that one can generally "use in one's sleep" are jettisoned for interfaces that are wholly unnatural to a given context.  Reinventing the wheel for the sake of reinvention, well . . .

            I don't know how or why anyone who's been "around cyberspace" and these sorts of venues for any period of time could convince themselves otherwise.

--
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 AND quoted messages #bug

 

Brian,

Agreed. Discussions of what is "customary" on my part have had to do with attempts to aligning the current hybrid mechanism with what are customarily, psychologically, and actually two separate, distinct mechanisms and functions: "reply" to a forum post and "PM" and individual. I have mostly resigned myself to the fact that Groups.io will not make them totally separate and they will continue to coexist as (supposedly) one function. So I am trying to explain that psychologically, we as humans think of them as two separate things, and the decision of which one (meaning: reply to individual, or reply to group - using the current language) is ALWAYS made first. We don't compose a general message and then thinks, "Hmmmm, should I send this to a certain person or to everyone?" No. If we're planning to send a private reply, we say to ourselves, "I'm going to message X privately, and tell him certain things that want only him to hear." That is a separate action, a completely separate mindset. 

But I fear these are never going to be separated to the extent I personally (and I think, you also?) think they should be (I'm not talking about physically separated - the UI comes later - I'm talking about the architecture), so I'm trying to come up with something that satisfies people's desires for pretending that they're the same.

The other issue that always comes up in this discussion is the fact that in Groups.io, as in Y!G before it, a group might have "reply to sender" as its default. That needs to be taken into account. But it should be a triviality to do that while still honoring the fact that the two actions  (reply to group vs PM) are really distinct.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.