Date   

locked Re: After making a poll can you be sent back to "messages" #suggestion

 

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:42 PM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

I just made a poll in our test group and noticed that after i was done it kept me on the new poll page as if i needed to make another.

Instead, can it send me back to "messages"?


Done!

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Testing the test version

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

I've been keeping a browser tab aside for the /test page, using the back button immediately after switching modes (and then refreshing the page so it shows my current mode). I kind of wish it didn't dump me Your Groups page, and refreshed itself instead. 
 
Done.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

p.s. It was fine before! What happened???
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Ok. So by "thread matches," you mean threads with the term in the title? I have no problem with that because to me, having the term in the title is the same as having it in the post. (And I thought you *already* included all threads that had at least one post containing the term. So this change seems unnecessary?)

What I don't like is the threads with the term in their titles always grouped at the top. This is resulting in very old matches at the top, which is counter-intuitive when I have my sort order set to "date." 

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Search in mobile message view

Maria
 

In mobile while in message view you can only search by message  number.

can we search by search term there too?

Maria 


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Mark,

I was just about to post that "search" is broken this morning and missing lots of posts. Then I saw this. Not sure I like it. I'll do some more searching.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Hi Shal,

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

Actually, I think that would be less confusing. That is, I don't think it is duplicative to show the Subject match (once) and each of the body matches (even when those bodies are part of the same thread as the subject match).

Also, I would group all Subject matches ahead of body matches, with the relevance or date sort applied within each group. Maybe that should be an option, but I find it odd to have them intermingled even when the bold face (in test version) tells me where the match is.

And (again) when the user clicks on "Date" please don't flip the date sort order unless Date was already the selected order. I find it jarring when I'm in relevance order and I click on Date (newest first) to have it flop to oldest first.


Ok, I've made these changes in search:

- Thread matches are always included, even if there's also a message match.
- Thread matches are always grouped at the top, before message matches, regardless of search ordering.
- When toggling between Relevance and Date, it should now remember your last date sort and display that.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Missing the HTML/Markdown/Plain control in New Topic and Reply #bug

 

Mark,

Missing on purpose, in my goal to simplify things a bit.
I suspected that might be the case.

Do you find yourself switching post types often?
"Often" is kind of dubious, since the vast majority of my replies & posts are by Email. But yes, when posting via the web I do commonly switch formats to use HTML in a reply.

Another option is to put that toggle under a button in the formatting toolbar (aka, "the ever expanding toolbar").

I've suggested recently that the "Insert Quote" and "Add Attachment" buttons move to the toolbar even for Plain Text and Markdown modes (and a toolbar be present in those modes, consequently). So this seems a natural relocation.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Missing the HTML/Markdown/Plain control in New Topic and Reply #bug

 

Shal,

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Shal Farley <shalfarley@...> wrote:

When in the test version on desktop I'm not seeing any control to set the message body format - HTML, Markdown, or Plain Text.


Missing on purpose, in my goal to simplify things a bit. I believe that the vast majority of people always post using whatever post preference they set (generally HTML), and having that extra control is superfluous at best and confusing at worst. Am I wrong? Do you find yourself switching post types often?

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:09 am, HR Tech wrote:
That's easy to solve: you make PM's opt in. 

 Actually, I'd make the PM default something that the group owner sets as part of setting up the group.

While I understand Duane's position, and actually share it for the most part, when it comes to being able to be private messaged the majority of setups are that it is on by default and off if the user turns it off.  This is another of those situations where I think that the most common presumption takes precedence over personal likes/dislikes so long as the user has ultimate control.  I know a lot of people who'd be really PO-ed if they found out that others were unable to PM them by default unless that had somehow been made very, very clear at the time of signing up or been a forced choice setting as part of signing up.

Here's a screen shot from another forum I use regularly of the detailed options for private messaging and what they call visitor messaging, which is a bit like a message wall:


--
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

Maria
 

Duane

That's easy to solve: you make PM's opt in. 

And by PM's - in this context- I'm not taking about replies to posts, which one opts into via participation. 

Maria



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Duane
 

I really hate having to opt out of things. I know it's common place a lot of places to set things up that way, but really irritates me. I figure if I want to be involved in something, I can look to see if it's possible and/or sign up for it.

Duane


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

Maria,

Here you go. See attached. I hope I translated your proposal accurately.
Thanks! Looks great. The only thing missing (I belatedly realize) is an mockup of the initial page, prior to the user clicking one of the three choices, with the original message showing but no composition tools yet. In that image only the More menu would be open, showing the location of the other two choices.

I see a problem using the member's profile instead of the word "sender"
(length varies/ there could be multiple "marias" - just hard to create a
fixed width button if the content is variable ...
I get both of those concerns, but it seemed to me that in the usual case the added clarity of naming the replyee (now my favorite non-word) may outweigh the occasional awkwardness. Perhaps the button can be fixed at a generous width, with longer names truncated as necessary.

- and think that it would be sufficient to have some explanatory text
under saying that your reply will go from "your email @ domain" to the
sender/author.
I think that's a great feature in your mockup, but I think I'd do both.

Also I'd prefer if reply language were consistent on web/digest and emails.
I'll have to go look at that, but perhaps the link can say the same thing.

I also am a bit concerned about these drop up menus on mobile...but who
knows...
Yeah, I'm not as versed in mobile. I started with much the same idea, but using radio buttons in the compose window rather than the More menu. In this case I was trying for something that would meet the "Select who first" model and the More menu made a lot more sense to me than putting the radio buttons in the bar beneath each message.

Any way, here is your proposal translated visually. I hope that's helpful.
Yes! And again, thank you very much.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Maria
 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:08 am, J_catlady wrote:
Full confession: I didn't read through Shal's entire proposal, and I didn't read this entire mockup, because I see right away that the user - again, as now - must first click on "reply" before making their choice of addressee/recipient. 

That's fixable in Shal's proposal, if instead of "reply" it says  arrow+"reply to group" (if that's the default. Vice versa if default is to sender) and then you would have the reply to sender option (or vice versa if default is sender) in the "more" menu.

That would make you decide before the composition window opens who you are writing to (although you could change your mind midway).

Same as in the 2nd mock-up shared previously, and in the 1st one the choice was more flexible as to the when you decide if you want to bypass the group default, but it was either one or the other - not both choices there equally, and you could change your mind midway.

As a side thought and it probably belongs in the thread about PM's, but it's been touched upon here: I think there are subtleties worth being mindful of with regards to private messages/PM's. A PM can come out of the blue (uninvited) and unrelated to a thread, whereas a private reply / reply to sender is a "Reply" - a response to a specific thread and conversation one has opened themselves up to via participation.

I am on one group ( a custom made email group/forum platform) where part of one's profile includes a checkbox which you unclick if you want to opt out of PM's. I'd imagine giving folks the option to opt out of that isn't a bad idea, but it probably should not interfere with receiving "replies" to one's posts or comments in threads.

Maria





locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Maria
 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:08 am, J_catlady wrote:
They often think they're sending their message to the originator of the thread rather than to the person whose message they happened to click "reply" on. 

I've seen this happen a handful of times in our Y! groups but it's so infrequent and usually by accident - not because they didn't understand the reply process. I find it's usually people just doing things too quickly.


Maria


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 07:17 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
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.  

I actually now agree with this. That's how PM'ing works. I think I was over-generalizing the use of the proposed function. However, believe it or not, I *have* seen instances of otherwise-intelligent group members thinking their "reply to sender" message was going to the OP when they simply clicked on the last response in the thread. As you can imagine, this can cause much chagrin. So I would at least prefer that the name of the recipient be shown to the user for verification. As you know, this will not conform 100% to PMs in a forum. My idea, at least, is that (as Jennifer first suggested, and Mark asked for thoughts on) at least the user will make the choice of forum or private before clicking on "reply" as a single word. The rest are details to me.
--
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@...>
 

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.
--
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

 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:25 am, J_catlady wrote:
it is far better to stick with the well-worn convention that a "Reply" button in a web forum interface meaning "make my reply to the group"

p.s. And the reason it's better is because it's the order in which we think. It's not better because it's a well-worn convention. The convention IS the well-worn convention because it matches how we think. As you said, Brian, Y!G and Groups.io are currently the outliers. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:19 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
If, upon hitting a reply link or button you are forced to actively choose your recipient that's still more than enough to satisfy the "before you start composing" cognitive requirement.  

Yes, it's a little better. But, as you say: 

In the final analysis, though, it is far better to stick with the well-worn convention that a "Reply" button in a web forum interface meaning "make my reply to the group" and a separate mechanism entirely for any form of "off group" messaging,-- 

The reason I feel that the specification of the recipient is important (or at least, part of what I think is the best solution - a "separate mechanism") is not because of the issue of the "unteachables" not understanding who their message is going to. As I said, that is much less important. 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.

--

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@...>
 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:08 am, J_catlady wrote:
They often think they're sending their message to the originator of the thread rather than to the person whose message they happened to click "reply" on.

 J,  not aimed at you:  Then they're just unteachable.

I cannot imagine how you would ever think that clicking on "send to sender" would work its way back through a chain of messages rather than take the sender from the message you originated a reply from.

I still don't like the "Send to Sender" button as an option that appears after the generic Reply button is hit.  But one has to be obtuse to believe any "Send to Sender" function doesn't do what it says, send to an individual message's sender, not to the thread originator.

Also, I really don't have any issue, at all, with the choice of recipient being wrapped up in the Reply step itself.  If, upon hitting a reply link or button you are forced to actively choose your recipient that's still more than enough to satisfy the "before you start composing" cognitive requirement.  After all, we do know that what's about to be composed is a reply, but the recipient should be selected prior to the composition starting.  If that's done it also eliminates the need for anything but a "Send" button.

In the final analysis, though, it is far better to stick with the well-worn convention that a "Reply" button in a web forum interface meaning "make my reply to the group" and a separate mechanism entirely for any form of "off group" messaging, no matter who that message is intended for.  It is an ingrained expectation that works incredibly well.  There is no need to change it, only want.


--
Brian

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