Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion


Mike Hanauer
 

Suggestion: Button Label Clarification for web site reply.

I had a person who was confused by needing to hit "Reply" (to compose message) and then hit "Reply to Group". As a result, he never sent his message.

If the second button were changed from "Reply to Group" to "Send Reply to Group" or at least Send something, that would be clearer. Most similar apps (including groups.io "new topic") use the word 'send' to signal composition is complete and to transmit the message.

AllTheBest.

  ~Mike

[Mod Note: Added a subject.]


 

I like this idea. Maybe just “Send”
--
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


Mike Hanauer
 

I don't think just "Send" would work without rework. That is because if you click on "private", the button changes to "reply to sender" from "reply to group" 

Simplest might be to just change "Reply to ____" to "Send to ____".

Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 04:45:43 PM EDT, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:


I like this idea. Maybe just “Send”
--
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


Mike Hanauer
 

And changing "Private" to "Reply Only to Sender" might be clearer and more consistent. On the other hand, the first reply could be a menu to choose one of the two.

Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 05:07:46 PM EDT, Mike Hanauer via groups.io <mghanauer@...> wrote:


I don't think just "Send" would work without rework. That is because if you click on "private", the button changes to "reply to sender" from "reply to group" 

Simplest might be to just change "Reply to ____" to "Send to ____".

Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 04:45:43 PM EDT, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:


I like this idea. Maybe just “Send”
--
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


Andy Wedge
 

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 09:30 PM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
If the second button were changed from "Reply to Group" to "Send Reply to Group" or at least Send something, that would be clearer.
I generally don't like lots of text on buttons so I wouldn't be a fan of adding extra words anyway. Adding extra text just takes up screen space and that could make the mobile site and recently released app less visually appealing. If a simple icon can be found to show the function then the words are far less important and it also makes Groups.io more accessible to those who do not speak/read English (and foreign language support has been requested many times).  I'm sure many of us know the meaning of these icons from the MS Office suite without the need for words at all  .

Andy


Mike Hanauer
 

I think if an extra word or two adds clarity or insight, it is well worth while. 

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:11:53 AM EDT, Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:


On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 09:30 PM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
If the second button were changed from "Reply to Group" to "Send Reply to Group" or at least Send something, that would be clearer.
I generally don't like lots of text on buttons so I wouldn't be a fan of adding extra words anyway. Adding extra text just takes up screen space and that could make the mobile site and recently released app less visually appealing. If a simple icon can be found to show the function then the words are far less important and it also makes Groups.io more accessible to those who do not speak/read English (and foreign language support has been requested many times).  I'm sure many of us know the meaning of these icons from the MS Office suite without the need for words at all  .

Andy


Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 01:05 PM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
I think if an extra word or two adds clarity or insight, it is well worth while.
Impossible to argue against that, but given that your original post read I had a person who was confused by needing to hit "Reply" (to compose message) and then hit "Reply to Group". As a result, he never sent his message then in this case it isn't entirely clear that it is necessary. A single person not understanding what is in front of them does not suggest that non - understanding of these particular functions is widespread.

Chris  


Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 01:17 PM, I wrote:
A single person not understanding what is in front of them does not suggest that non - understanding of these particular functions is widespread.
Further to the above the steps required to reply to a post (either to the group or only to the sender of the message) are clearly set out in Para 7.3.3 of the pdf version of the Members Manual.

Chris


Mike Hanauer
 

A couple of thoughts, Chris:
  1. A single person REPORTED the problem. After much dialog with that person, It is clear to me that it can, and therefore should, be improved.
  2. I believe if an app requires use of documentation for understanding, it is due to die. 

AllTheBest.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 08:28:43 AM EDT, Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 01:17 PM, I wrote:
A single person not understanding what is in front of them does not suggest that non - understanding of these particular functions is widespread.
Further to the above the steps required to reply to a post (either to the group or only to the sender of the message) are clearly set out in Para 7.3.3 of the pdf version of the Members Manual.

Chris


Duane
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 07:17 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
A single person not understanding what is in front of them does not suggest that non - understanding of these particular functions is widespread.
It would also depend on whether an individual had read the section of the Members Manual relating to how to reply.  I don't get too excited about suggestions like this when the information is readily available.  Little tweaks can be useful, but are often suggested because many don't want to be bothered reading the manuals.

Duane


 

Hi All,

After looking at what Gmail does, I've changed the `Reply` word to `Send` for the various reply button combos (ie it's now `Send to Group`).

Hope this helps.
Mark

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:37 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 07:17 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
A single person not understanding what is in front of them does not suggest that non - understanding of these particular functions is widespread.
It would also depend on whether an individual had read the section of the Members Manual relating to how to reply.  I don't get too excited about suggestions like this when the information is readily available.  Little tweaks can be useful, but are often suggested because many don't want to be bothered reading the manuals.

Duane


Andy Wedge
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 06:12 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I've changed the `Reply` word to `Send`
If you start a reply and then hit the Private button twice it changes back to 'Reply to Group'.

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Andy

 


 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 


Mike Hanauer
 

I think "Sender" is the more recognized.

But, the main point is that if "private" is chosen, and even reclicked, "Send" reverts back to "Reply" for both cases.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:32:18 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 


 

I like “send to author”.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 

--
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


Mike Hanauer
 

It IS the sender. It is probably the author. FURTHER, "sender" is what you use in many other contexts -- why introduce another inconsistency. Reply to sender is everywhere. And then "Reply to Sender" BUT "Send to Author".  Yuck me thinks.

But, the main point is that if "private" is chosen, and even reclicked, "Send" reverts back to "Reply" for both cases.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:37:47 PM EDT, Mike Hanauer <mghanauer@...> wrote:


I think "Sender" is the more recognized.

But, the main point is that if "private" is chosen, and even reclicked, "Send" reverts back to "Reply" for both cases.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:32:18 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 


 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
It IS the sender. It is probably the author. FURTHER, "sender" is what you use in many other contexts -- why introduce another inconsistency. Reply to sender is everywhere. And then "Reply to Sender" BUT "Send to Author".  Yuck me thinks.

Yes, I will be fixing the Send to/Reply to inconsistency. I was asking about Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.

Mark


Mike Hanauer
 

Thanks Mark. Now see your point. I think, still, I would retain sender. Me thinks changing terminology is a bigger problem. 
I don't think "author" is used elsewhere.


Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:53:31 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
It IS the sender. It is probably the author. FURTHER, "sender" is what you use in many other contexts -- why introduce another inconsistency. Reply to sender is everywhere. And then "Reply to Sender" BUT "Send to Author".  Yuck me thinks.

Yes, I will be fixing the Send to/Reply to inconsistency. I was asking about Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.

Mark


 

I see what’s going on here, and agree with J’s discussion. 
But I don’t care for “Author”. 
How about “Member” - that IS where it’s being directed - to that member. 


On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:42, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I like “send to author”.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 

--
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


Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 03:53 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Yes, I will be fixing the Send to/Reply to inconsistency. I was asking about Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.
My understanding:  The original complaint was that clicking "Reply to Sender" didn't make it clear that the button actually closed the editor and sent a message. 

Personally, I was not confused by this, and did not consider it broken...but I guess others disagree. That being the case, "Send to Sender" doesn't sound so bad. At least it tells you what's going to happen.

"Send to Author" doesn't work so well if the original post was a quote. "Post to Sender?" "Send to Originator?" They all have their problems, and are no better than "Reply to Sender" was. How about "Close and Send" with the actual destination indicated (and toggled as appropriate) elsewhere?

I will find some way to adapt to whatever we end up with. Wondering now if others will be so accommodating.

Regards,
Bruce