Topics

locked Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups


Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 08:27 am, J_catlady wrote:
That would be a PITA. In our group (and perhaps most groups?), the default is "reply to group."  

 Yeah it would be a PITA and we'd never opt for it      in our moderated groups. It was just a thought for groups where there may be serious legal implications with a mistake group reply. Because any solution will bring with it the possibility of human error. So if there are no mods to catch that in pending, maybe an extra optional feature for those groups is something to think about. 

Maria




Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 08:23 am, J_catlady wrote:
EDIT: I think you were referring here to the blue and green buttons. I think the point still applies. I don't think rolling it out is the solution. Are you then going to do do some sort of statistics, and how long do you wait, before deciding it did (or did not) solve the problem and try the proposed solution instead?

 J,

           First, you can't say that something that's visually more distinctive "won't work" until its tried.

           Second, given my years and years on all sorts of forums I can tell you that this problem, while it may be "modifiable" will never be solvable.  The problem is that people just don't pay attention to what they're doing.  Even with "Are you sure?" type blockades I've seen instances of people replying in public when they didn't mean to because they *just* *don't* *pay* *attention*.

            Third, and it does not apply to you or your group, specifically, anyone who is even thinking about posting anything that even might possibly expose something involving someone else, that is private, and that could precipitate legal liability really had ought to be thinking about that and responsible for their own actions.  It's not that I don't believe in safeguards, but I have become convinced that most of this kind of thing is due to operator obliviousness (and I hasten to add that's not always stupidity).

             What I'd actually love to see implemented is a "call back" option, not unlike one can use in Gmail, where one sets a delay of one's choosing, up to 30 seconds (I think) - it's been a long time since I set mine, where an "Undo Send" link is presented as a float-over after sending something, unless you send something else within that time, they don't stack.  I haven't used this often, but I've used it often enough over the years to recognize its value.  Most times I have a, "&%#*, I didn't mean to do that!!," reaction it happens within a second or two of hitting the button.

             For moderated groups I would presume that the moderator has not only the power to lock a given thread, but to remove it, or to remove individual posts.  If not, this is something that should be implemented.

Brian



Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

P.S.  I think the wording on the "Send to Sender" button should be changed to "Private Msg to Sender Only" or "Private Msg to Sender" immediately, if not sooner.  Definitely before the roll-out.

I've never liked the "Send to Sender" and I do think, particularly for newbies, it's vague.

I even think that "Reply to Group" is better than "Send to Group" for the button intended for that purpose, but that's already been taken care of.
--
Brian

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


 

Brian,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:

you can't say that something that's visually more distinctive "won't work" until its tried.

 I'm not saying it won't work. I'm saying it sounds to me like another band-aid. It certainly can't hurt. If I were Mark, I would roll this out immediately and STILL consider the option being discussed here. 

 while it may be "modifiable" will never be solvable.  

Of course not. We're talking about fallible human beings. But we want to make it as unlikely as possible for them to make a mistake. i don't think the present UI does that.

anyone who is even thinking about posting anything that even might possibly expose something involving someone else, that is private, and that could precipitate legal liability really had ought to be thinking about that and responsible for their own actions.  

Of course they should, and I think for the most part, they do. (Legalities are not a problem in my own particular group, BTW, but that's irrelevant.) All the more reason for the system itself to make it harder for them to make a mistake. People are always going to be fallible. You're making my point for me. :-) The system should help them out. 

For moderated groups I would presume that the moderator has not only the power to lock a given thread, but to remove it, or to remove individual posts. 

Even in unmoderated groups like mine, mods can always do this. But the posts are still in every email subscriber's email inbox. "Deletion" is not really deletion. Locking a thread doesn't have a bearing on this that I can see.

--

J (handwritten signature;)



Duane
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:

             For moderated groups I would presume that the moderator
has not only the power to lock a given thread, but to remove it, or to remove
individual posts.  If not, this is something that should be implemented.

Brian
Moderated or not, the owner (or properly permissioned moderators) can do all of those things on a group.

Duane


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:15 am, J_catlady wrote:
"Deletion" is not really deletion. Locking a thread doesn't have a bearing on this that I can see.

I'm not arguing against, potentially, additional safeguards.  Based on my own decades of experience I have found the following to be true, and have come to believe it far more than I did when I first encountered it:

                            Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are just so damned ingenious.

You are correct that locking a thread is not directly relevant, I was just throwing it in because it is a power that I, as a non-moderator, know that moderators do have.  I also agree about deletion if a group is both e-mail and forum, and I presume all groups.io groups are.  Which raises an interesting question (if it's not already possible, I don't know):  Can a group on Groups.io be set up to be strictly e-mail list, strictly online forum, or hybrid?   If not, that might be something to consider as a later upgrade.  It would also make the deletion option much more relevant for "online forum only" format - as one can expunge the "official record" relatively quickly - often before most group members even see something if the request to moderator comes in and is acted on in very short order.

As a final note, when it comes to posting you might be surprised just "how average" I've been over the months in terms of making the "Send to Group" rather than "Send to Sender" mistake.  I can state, unequivocally for myself, that having clear visual relief between the buttons for each purpose now has had a positive impact in preventing my doing that on at least one occasion.

Brian - also "handwritten" due to sig bug



David P. Dillard
 

Thanks so much for the positive feedback to this post.

I think a great deal in terms of this mistake being made depends on what each individual does in handling email. Keep in mind that many of the people posting to discussion groups reply from their email message and not from the web discussion group online. The owners on the discussion group network can control what is seen by someone replying to a message on the website of in this case Groups.IO. I do not believe the same owners control the message that comes up when a poster uses the reply mechanism within an email from a group within the inbox of their email account.

I am using Alpine, the newer version of Pine out of the University of Washington that Temple University makes available to users of the corporate Gmail account provided to students, faculty and staff at Temple.
This is what I see here is this message in my Alpine box.

Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?

Since Alpine email is text based, no images, icons or the like, I will not see any colored dots.

I must chose here between the two options and then the software formulates my message and I can change the recipients and modify the message until I send it. No colors here. If I use TU Mail (Gmail) instead, I can click on the word REPLY and that is my only reply option. I will need to change my recipients manually if I do not want those that Gmail selects. In other words, I suspect that any changes that Mark makes may only completely effect replies made from the web page on Groups.IO for the discussion group in question. That said, if Mark can get Gmail to return your Groups.IO messages to your account as incoming mail that lands in your sent mail box, I would not be surprised by anything he can do to make systems work better for Groups.IO users. In thinking this over, Mark could embed these options in the email message that comes into my box from a Groups.IO list. However, he may want to include a text based version of the same reply method as well as the color coding as the use of color for system commands is not ADA compliant as visually impaired, color blind and blind users cannot interpret the colors, making their use in such a context a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabiliies Act).

Therefore there is much more to this than ability to read plain English. Users in a hurry may not read the plain English at all and act without knowing what their action is doing. They may be seeing variant instructions from on the web in the email message itself, unless they are clearly in the text of every group message received by email. Also without the word only, reply to sender is ambiguous. The user may assume that this link will add the sender to the list of recipients in the case where the sender has a no mail restriction for group email and not a restriction to send ones reply to the sender and no one else. This is not English reading ability, this is perception of a statement that is somewhat ambiguous. The bottom line is that anything one can try to reduce the occurance of these errors is worth trying, but it is unlikely that these mistakes will stop cccuring completely. Everyone enjoy this longer holiday weekend.


.

.



Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@...

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, J_catlady wrote:

David,
I agree with all of this. As for this:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 06:21 am, David P. Dillard wrote:

It may happen a few times a year,
 In my group of only 150 members, it is happening several times a month (conservatively).


 

Whenever I send a response to someone offlist, I make sure that they know it by starting off every such message with, "This is private (offlist) response."

As a side benefit to a UI that has "choose recipient first, compose second," a private message could automatically start with that header or something like it. Because another problem I've seen is that when people receive an offlist response, they VERY OFTEN don't realize that it's offlist. That includes myself. Gmail still groups the response into the message thread, even if offlist, and I sometimes FREAK OUT when I see what someone has "posted," until I realize they haven't really posted it but actually sent it to me privately. Sometimes, I'll even go the group to try to respond via the web and it takes me some time before I realize their message is not there

So I see a potential huge advantage in the proposed change.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:28 am, David P. Dillard wrote:
However, he may want to include a text based version of the same reply method as well as the color coding as the use of color for system commands is not ADA compliant as visually impaired, color blind and blind users cannot interpret the colors, making their use in such a context a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabiliies Act).

 I just want to hasten to add that Mark has definitely been sensitive to accessibility issues (not that I'm implying that you're saying he's not been).

I have simply presumed that what is generated is generated in such a way that screen readers will announce things correctly and, under the web interface and using the latest version of NVDA the "Reply to Group", "Reply to Sender," and "Discard" buttons are all announced correctly.

I think I may have just found a bug with the web interface but I don't know if it's an NVDA bug or a Groups.io web coding bug, or something else.  What follows will only be meaningful to someone who is familiar with screen readers and, specifically, NVDA terminology regarding modes a user can be in with regard to a webpage.  Right now I'm in browse mode, but everything is behaving just like I'm in focus mode as far as letting me type in this box.  However, if I try to use the 'b' command to jump to the buttons while in browse mode it obviously does not work because I'm still being allowed to type in this compose box when in browse mode so the letter 'b', when typed, is not taken as a command.  I've tried toggling between browse and focus modes to see if that would make me able to use the usual single letter navigation to get to the three previously mentioned buttons, but no dice.



David P. Dillard
 

Thanks for that comment. I am very aware that Mark is on top of what he does and aware of issues on lists related to disabilities. It is, nevertheless, good to send reminders as an ounce of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure (trying to avoid a cliche <g>) My research guides at Temple have been undergoing extensive modification as a result of the ADA lawsuit at Penn State. I am motivated by the fact that I consider Groups.IO to be an exceptional service run be a marvelous person and I do not want to see it hurt in any way, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify my motivation.




Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@...

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, Brian Vogel wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:28 am, David P. Dillard wrote:
However, he may want to include a text based version of the same reply method as well as the color coding as the
use of color for system commands is not ADA compliant as visually impaired, color blind and blind users cannot
interpret the colors, making their use in such a context a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabiliies
Act).
 I just want to hasten to add that Mark has definitely been sensitive to accessibility issues (not that I'm implying that
you're saying he's not been).
I have simply presumed that what is generated is generated in such a way that screen readers will announce things correctly
and, under the web interface and using the latest version of NVDA the "Reply to Group", "Reply to Sender," and "Discard"
buttons are all announced correctly.
I think I may have just found a bug with the web interface but I don't know if it's an NVDA bug or a Groups.io web coding
bug, or something else.  What follows will only be meaningful to someone who is familiar with screen readers and,
specifically, NVDA terminology regarding modes a user can be in with regard to a webpage.  Right now I'm in browse mode, but
everything is behaving just like I'm in focus mode as far as letting me type in this box.  However, if I try to use the 'b'
command to jump to the buttons while in browse mode it obviously does not work because I'm still being allowed to type in
this compose box when in browse mode so the letter 'b', when typed, is not taken as a command.  I've tried toggling between
browse and focus modes to see if that would make me able to use the usual single letter navigation to get to the three
previously mentioned buttons, but no dice.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

David,

             I just want to hasten to say that my comment was not intended, in any way, to be critical of yours.

             I actually just hit a couple of glaring accessibility issues in the test system, and how having jumped back to the live system they are not also present here.  I, like you, believe that preventing accessibility issues from occurring is far better than trying to fix them after the fact.  This is even more true when an existing system is actually accessible and the "new and improved" version may not be, for whatever reason.

             I just don't want to bore the group at large with what are generally arcane discussions if Mark would rather they take place elsewhere, hence the reason for my other thread asking about just that.
--
Brian

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


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:37 am, J_catlady wrote:
As a side benefit to a UI that has "choose recipient first, compose second,"

 J,

              The problem here being, in my opinion, is that this is not and never has been the norm for online forums.  What we have on Groups.io that is very odd is the "Reply to Sender" button included as part of the standard reply mechanism.  On every blessed other forum I'm on that does not exist as an option to a forums post, per se.  There are easy ways to send a private message to a given poster from the reading window, but that most often involves having to click on that sender's name that shows up at the top of a given post.   Here are examples from three different other forums I'm heavily active on, and all of these are not a part of the standard reply sequence, and all use the mechanism I mentioned:




This is a situation where I'd be highly inclined to use the "what others do" metric and to change how one sends a private response that entirely removes it from the thread reply mechanism in the web interface.  The e-mail interface is a whole other ball o' wax.
--
Brian

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


Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 09:15 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
P.S.  I think the wording on the "Send to Sender" button should be changed to "Private Msg to Sender Only" or "Private Msg to Sender" immediately, if not sooner.  Definitely before the roll-o

I agree that an adjustment to the "reply to sender" button wording to further clarify that it's a private email reply, in addition to the already green/blue buttons that now come with different icons on the test version will help make things even clearer. 

Here are some additional ideas for possible wording if this option were to be considered:

Private reply

Private reply to sender

Private reply to sender only

PM to sender
Reply to sender only
Email author

I think the word "private" put before anything else would help on the web interface. 

Maria 




Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:25 am, HR Tech wrote:
I agree that an adjustment to the "reply to sender" button wording to further clarify that it's a private email reply, in addition to the already green/blue buttons that now come with different icons on the test version will help make things even clearer. 

 Maria,

            We were again clearly typing at the same time.  However, I actually think that extricating the "Reply to Sender" function entirely from the standard reply to thread function is the best way to minimize or eliminate these sorts of accidents entirely.

             Now that I think of it, and over long periods of time, I don't think I've ever encountered an accidental mixup of this sort on forums where the private response mechanism is so removed from the thread reply mechanism that one simply cannot ever do one in place of the other.

             Just more food for thought.
--
Brian

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


Duane
 

Maybe this would be a good item to move to the More menu?

Duane


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:32 am, Duane wrote:
Maybe this would be a good item to move to the More menu?

That would be a definite option and would certainly radically decrease these incidents due to fat-mousing (the closest equivalent to fat-fingering, unless you're using a touch screen, where fat-fingering could still apply).

There will be PO-ed users no matter what, but to my mind it's an easy task to re-educate users on these sorts of changes and, after a brief &%$(@ curve due to not being able to use "muscle memory"  anymore, they cruise blissfully along with the revised method and it becomes "muscle memory".
--
Brian

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


David P. Dillard
 

Not to worry, I did not take it that way and thus the sincere thanks. I just wanted to make my motivation clear in regard to commenting on the colors. This sure has been an interesting and lively discussion. I do not think there is another discussion group network in this or any other planet that has such an involved, interested and sharing membership and group leadership. Good stuff.




Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@...

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, Brian Vogel wrote:

David,
             I just want to hasten to say that my comment was not intended, in any way, to be critical of yours.
             I actually just hit a couple of glaring accessibility issues in the test system, and how having jumped back to
the live system they are not also present here.  I, like you, believe that preventing accessibility issues from occurring is
far better than trying to fix them after the fact.  This is even more true when an existing system is actually accessible
and the "new and improved" version may not be, for whatever reason.
             I just don't want to bore the group at large with what are generally arcane discussions if Mark would rather
they take place elsewhere, hence the reason for my other thread asking about just that.
--
Brian
A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


 
Edited

Brian,

Removing [EDIT: I mean separating it out] the "private message" selection would be ideal for my group and others whose default is "send to group." The problem, as I think someone here has already pointed out (maybe it was Maria?), is that some groups have the other default, and somehow the UI must take this all into account. Maybe it could toggle the entire view and selection method depending on which is the default?

I really love this idea of separating out the "private reply" mechanism completely. IMO, the "pick recipient first, compose second" idea is simply one step along the way to that. It's a halfway solution but better than nothing, given that groups have one or the other as default.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

David,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:38 am, David P. Dillard wrote:

I do not think there is another discussion group network in this or any other planet that has such an involved, interested and sharing membership and group leadership. Good stuff.

I've been thinking the same thing. 

J  



Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:24 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
This is a situation where I'd be highly inclined to use the "what others do" metric and to change how one sends a private response that entirely removes it from the thread reply mechanism in the web interface.  The e-mail interface is a whole other ball o' wax.

I mentioned in my first feedback post on this thread how much I love that groups.io doesn't make you leave a thread in order to reply privately. Same with Y!, Google, and the other group listservs that also have web interfaces. I stand by that feedback. Taking that away would be removing something special about groups.io. 

In our and many other groups that I participate in, the offline replies are so important. It's important they remain with the same subject line as the thread, it's important they be an easy option, and in turn often members post summaries of offline replies received so that the group as a whole may benefit from the info the poster received offline. 

Too many reasons to list here why I wouldn't support the removal of that option in threads, many of which I think have been discussed previously in other threads on this separate issue.

Maria