Topics

moderated Reply to Sender


Noel Leaver
 

I've twice had users of the web interface complaining that there is no way to 'Reply to Sender'. I have to explain that it is there, but you need first to reply (which is not obvious, as it feels like reply to group) and then notice the greyed out button on the right  "Private" and realise this is the same as reply to sender, and that it is not greyed out because not available but because the option is not selected.

 

It seems sufficiently obscure that people can't find it even when looking for it.

 

The email interface is fine, as it has a 'Reply to Sender' link as well as a 'Reply to Group' link.

 

I would prefer to have a button labelled "Reply to Sender" alongside "Reply to Group" and get rid of the Private button. I realise this gives something of an issue with the BCC me option - how valuable is this? could it be shown anyway and ignored for Reply to Group.

 

Or to have both Reply to Group and Reply to Sender options under the message display a level up.

 

Another option, less of a change, would be to alter the Private button to be a check box above the Reply to Group button, that way it would be more noticeable and more clearly associated with the Reply button.

 

Noel


Dave Sergeant
 

On 25 Mar 2019 at 14:43, Noel Leaver via Groups.Io wrote:

The email interface is fine, as it has a 'Reply to Sender' link as well
as a 'Reply to Group' link.
Only on the HTML part of email messages, those who opt for (or who post
in) plain text are missing that.

I agree with your comment, I am also often asked the same question or
'please tell me your email address'. which is always visible in the
'from' line of emails, though may be munged, but the 'from' on the web
version is shortened for security reasons.

Dave

http://davesergeant.com


 

Noel,

... and then notice the greyed out button on the right "Private" and
realise this is the same as reply to sender, and that it is not greyed
out because not available but because the option is not selected.
I agree that grey, which usually signifies a control that is not available (doesn't "click"), is a very poor choice for a button that is actually intended to be used.

I would prefer to have a button labelled "Reply to Sender" alongside
"Reply to Group" and get rid of the Private button.
It was once that way. The criticism was that it made it too easy for members to accidentally click the wrong one.

I realise this gives something of an issue with the BCC me option -
how valuable is this?
It is IMO essential for private replies, as otherwise you have no copy of message you sent.

could it be shown anyway and ignored for Reply to Group.
I don't see the harm in leaving it present and functional. A person whose subscription is Digest, Special Notice, or No Email might find it useful to have an emailed copy of their reply.

Shal


Maria
 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:43 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:

It seems sufficiently obscure that people can't find it even when looking for it.

 

I disagree re: obscurity. I think the reply interface was updated (2016?) to the current layout for replies. We have had very few accidental group replies as a result of the layout. I think it helps tremendously with that and mirrors the private reply option on a few other widely used platforms. Especially on a mobile screen, it's very easy to locate. Folks in our groups use the private reply option a lot.

I can see how with large desktop screens it may feel too far away, not sure there is a fix for that.

FWIW the groups I moderate/help with are on in the mid-size range/frequent activity, and I only mention that as data because if people were routinely confused, we'd definitely be getting complaints, but also as reassurance in case your members are new to the platform, that ours got a hang of it real quick.

I am satisfied with the way it is at the moment and would be very apprehensive about any major change to it.

Maria


Barbara Byers
 

Funny, I hardly ever use the web interface to send messages, but I happened to try yesterday and I could not figure out how to Reply to Sender.  I didn't even notice the "Private" button, LOL.  I ended up having to go back to my email to do it.

Just wondering why it is called "Private" rather than "Reply to Sender"?  Is there a distinction I'm missing?

Barb


 

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:19 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
I hardly ever use the web interface to send messages
If you did it more often you'd quickly get used to it. This is one of those things that people learn the first time around. But it could benefit from some user documentation for sure.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Barbara Byers
 

I would agree with showing all or part of the email address for the same reason, to show it's going to the right person.  

Now that I played around with it, I'm OK with how it works, it's just the "Private" isn't very intuitive.  Could it be labeled "Private Reply"  or something like that?  Just thinking out loud.

Barb

 


On 2019-03-27 10:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Dave Sergeant
 

When I receive a 'private' email it gives the impression that the
sender was sharing something with me that I should keep to myself and
not even mention in the group. In most cases it is nothing such. Reply
to Sender and a less dramatic word in the reply subject line would be
far better.

Dave

On 27 Mar 2019 at 7:19, Barbara Byers wrote:

Just wondering why it is called "Private" rather than "Reply to Sender"?

http://davesergeant.com


Noel Leaver
 

> I disagree re: obscurity. I think the reply interface was updated (2016?) to the current layout for replies. We have had very few accidental group replies as a result of the layout. I think it helps tremendously with that and mirrors the private reply option on a few other widely used platforms. Especially on a mobile screen, it's very easy to locate. 

I can see it helps you, but some of my users are on unable to find and use the feature. All the other platforms I use have a Reply to sender option rather than Private - including group.io when using email Further, as someone who normally uses email when I tried to find the option on the web screen it took some time, if was average user I would have given up and assumed it did not exist.

> I can see how with large desktop screens it may feel too far away, not sure there is a fix for that

I think my last suggestion is a good solution. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. It would be much more obvious and I don't think would make it more likely for people to use it by accident.

Noel


 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
Reply
to Sender and a less dramatic word in the reply subject line would be
far better.

I think people are mixing up the name of the button, which could reasonably be changed from "private" to "reply to sender," with the subject line of the message, which currently begins with the word "private" but could not be reasonably be changed to "reply to sender." I do agree that the word "private" for the subject line sounds TOO private. I usually append the word "offlist" to the subject line, which has the effects of both removing the weirdness of the word "private" and takes my reply out of the email thread for the onlist topic. (The word "private" currently appended unfortunately - IMO- keeps the private reply within the group topic in my email, which tends to be confusing.)

So I agree that the button name could (but not necessarily should) be changed to "Reply to Sender". And the subject title could possibly be changed to add "offlist" instead of "private." I think both changes would be slight improvements. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. 
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Noel Leaver
 

> There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 
If not possible, changing the button colour to not grey would be an improvement.

Noel 


On 27 March 2019 14:40:02 GMT, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. 
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 


Sharon Villines
 

On Mar 27, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Dave Sergeant <dave@...> wrote:

When I receive a 'private' email it gives the impression that the
sender was sharing something with me that I should keep to myself and
not even mention in the group.
“Private" also gives the impression that the main list is “public,” that anyone can read the message if you don’t post privately.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
TakomaDC@Groups.io
"Neighbors Talking to Neighbors”
Takoma Park DC and MD


Noel Leaver
 

> So I agree that the button name could (but not necessarily should) be changed to "Reply to Sender". 

Even Offlist would be clearer in my view.

Noel


 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:47 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
Even Offlist would be clearer in my view
Agreed. I always change the subject title by hand by adding that word to the "Private [original subject title]" line
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:51 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:47 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
Even Offlist would be clearer in my view
Oh, sorry, I think you were referring to the button. I wouldn't mind the button being changed to "Offlist" either. Then the button name and the word at the front of the message would match.

I also argued awhile back that the message body itself start with and identifying word like "offlist" or "private." It frequently happens that I get a private message from someone and have no idea it's private, because the message is threaded within the topic in my emails. I then answer the message, assuming my message is going to appear onlist, and only when my reply doesn't post do I belatedly realize the message was private. I consider myself a savvy user and if this is happening to me, it's probably happening to others. I've even had some unpleasant communication problems because of this misunderstanding.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Sarah k Alawami
 

To me it's fine. This is howmost forums I've ben on work so I'm used to the change and have ben usign this for 2-3 years on groups.io when I visit the web interface which is rare, maybe 2-3 times a year.

On 27 Mar 2019, at 7:30, Barbara Byers wrote:

I would agree with showing all or part of the email address for the same reason, to show it's going to the right person.  

Now that I played around with it, I'm OK with how it works, it's just the "Private" isn't very intuitive.  Could it be labeled "Private Reply"  or something like that?  Just thinking out loud.

Barb

 


On 2019-03-27 10:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:26 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:19 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
I hardly ever use the web interface to send messages
If you did it more often you'd quickly get used to it.
Exactly!


Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:40 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. 
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 
--
I can't remember either. But check boxes on mobile web and apps are not a good experience.
Re: the term "offlist" ( i am having dejavú) it's not a term the demographic in our groups would relate to at all and groups.io is SO much more than a listserv.
I think we kicked around the ideas Direct ( as in DM) or Private and it was agreed that private worked.

Again, have yet to get a complaint about this aspect of the interface - and more importantly no embarrassing private messages intended as such going to the group as a result.