moderated Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion


Mike Hanauer
 

Thanks so much for the brainstorming Mark.

Another, perhaps better or easier/straighforward solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender" - and eliminate the private button. "Discard" can stay, perhaps on the right.

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, 04:00:12 PM EDT, Mike Hanauer via groups.io <mghanauer@...> wrote:


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 vote for Send to Member!


On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Dan Tucker <antiquetuck@...> wrote:

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


--
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
 

In some cases, a sender may not be a member. True?

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, 04:11:35 PM EDT, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:


I vote for Send to Member!


On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Dan Tucker <antiquetuck@...> wrote:


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


--
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 Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:07 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Another, perhaps better or easier/straighforward solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender" - and eliminate the private button. "Discard" can stay, perhaps on the right.

I don't like the idea of adding another button. The Private button was an idea taken from Instagram, which given their number of users, I consider a standard.

Mark


Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 09:07 PM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
Another, perhaps better or easier/straighforward solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender" - and eliminate the private button.
That suggestion removes a group Owner's ability to set the Default Reply Option (e.g. Group or Sender) for no obvious wider benefit. The ability to remove one or the other reply options might remain, but it still takes away a function that Owners currently have. How might they view that removal? A change of button or tab wording is one thing; a change in available functions is another matter entirely.

Chris


Mike Hanauer
 

Understand. My thought is for you to stay true to your own (Groups.io) conventions which, IMHO, are among the most consistent and intuitive - you are now a force too. If you see a convention somewhere else that is clearly more intuitive, then go with it everywhere in Groups.io -- even if it takes time to implement. 

Yup, I'm a long term/big picture guy.

AllTheBest.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:27:21 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:07 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Another, perhaps better or easier/straighforward solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender" - and eliminate the private button. "Discard" can stay, perhaps on the right.

I don't like the idea of adding another button. The Private button was an idea taken from Instagram, which given their number of users, I consider a standard.

Mark


Duane
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 03:07 PM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender"
That's what we had back in the early days.  Since group owners can decide what the default is - group, sender, both, moderators, or following only - having the other options somewhat hidden makes the most sense to me.

Duane


ro-esp
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:05 PM, Dan Tucker wrote:


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.
Err... no. One typical trait of groups.io is that you can set the group to allow posts by non-members, and any reply to such a message/thread reply will go to the non-member in question

groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


Andy Wedge
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:53 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.
I still think what we had before this started was preferable.

Andy


 

How about "Send Privately"?

JohnF


 

I don't like "Send Privately." I could live with "Send Private Message."

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:26 PM JohnF via groups.io <johnf1686=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
How about "Send Privately"?

JohnF






--
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


 

I was going to second "Send Private Message" as it's unambiguous (just as "Send to Group" is also unambiguous) but I see Mark already set it to "Send to Sender", so too late I guess :)

We could though change the laconic "Private" to "Private Message", or leave it as such and add "Private Message" as a tooltip.  That's closer to the PM acronym on social media.

Cheers,
Christos


 

I think “Send to Sender” sounds weird for a specific reason, which is that it creates a chronological conundrum, namely: the person doing the “Send” in “Send to Sender” is, at that point in time, himself or herself the “Sender.” Yet they are not sending the message to themselves. So I think this is  a mistake.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 5:52 PM, Christos Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

I was going to second "Send Private Message" as it's unambiguous (just as "Send to Group" is also unambiguous) but I see Mark already set it to "Send to Sender", so too late I guess :)

We could though change the laconic "Private" to "Private Message", or leave it as such and add "Private Message" as a tooltip.  That's closer to the PM acronym on social media.

Cheers,
Christos

--
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


 

J wrote:

I think “Send to Sender” sounds weird for a specific reason, which is
that it creates a chronological conundrum, ... Yet they are not
sending the message to themselves.
I'm not fond of "Send to Sender" either, for much the same reason.

How about just "Send", with a fuller explanation in text below the button:
"Send your reply to the group" (button background is green).
"Send your reply only to the individual" (button background is blue).

Shal


 

"Send to Sender" reminds me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
^^^snake eating its own tail

But I think Shal's idea goes too far in the direction of wordiness. I would just go back to "Send to Member."
--
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


 

I wrote:

How about just "Send", with a fuller explanation in text below the
button:
"Send your reply to the group" (button background is green).
"Send your reply only to the individual" (button background is blue).
I may not have been clear, but my intent was that only one of those two phrases appear, the one matching the color of the button.

J wrote:

But I think Shal's idea goes too far in the direction of wordiness.
You probably understood my intent, but seeing your comment I decided to respond anyway in case others hadn't.

K wrote:

...

Dang, there ought to have been a "K" in this topic.

Shal


 

Shal,

You were very clear. I feel like either one is too wordy.

I also think Send to Member works great with Send to Group in the other case.

On Oct 8, 2021, at 12:10 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

I wrote:

How about just "Send", with a fuller explanation in text below the
button:
"Send your reply to the group" (button background is green).
"Send your reply only to the individual" (button background is blue).
I may not have been clear, but my intent was that only one of those two phrases appear, the one matching the color of the button.

J wrote:

But I think Shal's idea goes too far in the direction of wordiness.
You probably understood my intent, but seeing your comment I decided to respond anyway in case others hadn't.

K wrote:

...

Dang, there ought to have been a "K" in this topic.

Shal




--
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 Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 08:14 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I also think Send to Member works great with Send to Group in the other case.
As I've said, I was quite happy with how it was. I never found it confusing and I've not had any comments from any of my members about that either.

I think the root cause of this issue is that the initial reply option makes no distinction, like in many email clients, between 'Reply' and 'Reply All', It's only after the initial 'Reply' has been selected that we then get to the point of deciding how many people we are replying to.

So, instead of having just the options Reply, Like and More under a message, why not have  'Reply to Group', 'Reply to Sender', Like and More.  The little arrow symbol next to the word Reply could be duplicated for ' Reply to Group' and left as a single arrow for ' Reply to Sender'. Alternatively, the single arrow could be supplemented with a group head & shoulders icon for ' Reply to Group' or a single person head & shoulders icon  for 'Reply to Sender'.

This would a) make the approach of starting a reply more consistent with email clients b) remove the need for the Private button and c) enable a single 'Send' button to used below the message composition window (more consistency with email clients).  The 'BCC Me' check box option should still only be displayed for 'Reply to Sender' responses.

Regards
Andy


 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 01:06 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 08:14 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I also think Send to Member works great with Send to Group in the other case.
As I've said, I was quite happy with how it was.
That's not how it was.
 
--
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


Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 09:06 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
So, instead of having just the options Reply, Like and More under a message, why not have  'Reply to Group', 'Reply to Sender', Like and More.  The little arrow symbol next to the word Reply could be duplicated for ' Reply to Group' and left as a single arrow for ' Reply to Sender'. Alternatively, the single arrow could be supplemented with a group head & shoulders icon for ' Reply to Group' or a single person head & shoulders icon  for 'Reply to Sender'.

This would a) make the approach of starting a reply more consistent with email clients b) remove the need for the Private button and c) enable a single 'Send' button to used below the message composition window (more consistency with email clients).
It would also (d) remove the set Default Reply Option that Owners currently have as pointed out in my #30478, and I think that would be a mistake.

I will readily agree that it would look very neat, but as I also said earlier A change of button or tab wording is one thing; a change in available functions is another matter entirely. If there is a genuine difficulty with the existing wording then IMHO resolving that by tinkering with the availability of a function is the wrong solution.

Chris