Topics

locked Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups


 

Again, I don't think the order of the choices is intuitive. I have nothing against this verbiage. But it's a bandaid (my opinion). Because the message box is already showing, it is obviously displayed only AFTER the user hits "reply." The hitting of the single word "reply" FIRST nullifies the whole solution being presented here. It waters down the work. The problem I perceive that we're trying to solve is the user having to hit the single word "reply" FIRST, before anything happens, before the message box even comes up. This mistakenly  lends a feeling that they're replying to group. Only afterwards do they get a chance to "correct" that by the choice of "to group" or "to sender" or whatever. The choice of "to group" or "to sender" (whatever verbiage is used - I think the actual verbiage used is of very marginal difference) is made, in the user's head, before they compose their reply. An intuitive UI would ASK for that choice first.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:36 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

I wanted to share a mock-up I did that's a variation/hybrid on the concept i saw on an APP version of a listserv i mentioned on a post in this thread.

Premise this all with : 1) have no idea if this is even doable 2) I have only had 1/2 cup of coffee 3) this is just an idea. :)

Ok - so image #1 shows a greyed out "private"button (or "group" when default is sender) on the right hand side that would need to be clicked to have the "reply to sender" ( or to group) kick in.

Once that's clicked it goes normal blue and the reply to group button is replaced with the reply to sender button. (vice -versa if reply to sender is the default)

This would resolve the issue of making mistakes as it would:

a) default to the group default  (thus encouraging the group culture)

b) make you do a step in order to activate the option of the non-default option.

c) not "feel" email-y and not show actual email addresses

d) help reassure anyone who feels nervous that their private reply would go public because that "group" button simply wouldn't be there and vice versa if the default were sender and the greyed out button were toggled to "group" instead of "private"

e) add the words "private reply" or "offlist" to the subject automatically

And now for coffee #2.

Maria






--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Seeing this now. How would it allow you to decide first?

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:48 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

Oh and :

F) it would allow you to decide before you start to write who the recipient is BUT you could change that midway or after if you changed your mind.



--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

p.s. The choice should be asked for even before the user even hits "reply." Of course it should be changeable. Have the "reply to group" or "reply to sender" (again, I think the verbiage doesn't matter much - it's the decision that matters) - have the choices pop up before the message box even comes up. After they make the selection, the message box pops up and the two choices would remain at the top (not the bottom). Use the verbiage you've suggested or some other verbiage. I wouldn't care. It's the choice order that's the issue for me.

All of these details about the exact words used or how it's presented on the screen are irrelevant to me, as long as the order the choice is asked for matches the order in the user's head: "reply to x" and then the message.

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 07:14 am, J_catlady wrote:
Seeing this now. How would it allow you to decide first?

You would click on the "private" button *before* you start typing/inputting content in to your reply composition window, which in turn would activate the "reply to sender" and the "+offlist" in the subject and remove the "reply to group" - hence eliminating any ambiguity/insecurity. This would have  the added benefit of favoring the group default *before* the alternate available option, thus providing "weight" to the group default option.


 

That's great. As long as you pick "private" (or whatever) first, I have no problem with this (or any other) verbiage. It's zero-one for me. It's the order of choice: before or after. I'm not even bothering to read the details of what happens after that. It's irrelevant to me.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:42 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 07:14 am, J_catlady wrote:
Seeing this now. How would it allow you to decide first?

You would click on the "private" button *before* you start typing/inputting content in to your reply composition window, which in turn would activate the "reply to sender" and the "+offlist" in the subject and remove the "reply to group" - hence eliminating any ambiguity/insecurity. This would have  the added benefit of favoring the group default *before* the alternate available option, thus providing "weight" to the group default option.



--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Actually I take that back. It is relevant if the user still has to hit "reply" before making any of these choices. That's still the dealbreaker for me. I think the fact that the term you're suggesting is simply "private" implies that they've already had to do that. So I'm still voting no. If you'd said something like "reply privately" - or anything that implies they have NOT YET clicked on "reply" - I'd be ok with it. But that does not seem to be your suggestion. So it's still a "no" for me and doesn't answer Mark's issue/question about the input order.
--
J

Statements made in messages to the beta group are the sole opinion of the author. :-)

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

And I think that's all I have to say (finally;). All I care about is the order of the input; "reply to" or "PM author" (or whatever) should (in my strong opinion) be chosen first, after which the message box pops up. I don't care about the words, the colors, or the placement on the screen. Just the order.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:49 AM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Actually I take that back. It is relevant if the user still has to hit "reply" before making any of these choices. That's still the dealbreaker for me. I think the fact that the term you're suggesting is simply "private" implies that they've already had to do that. So I'm still voting no. If you'd said something like "reply privately" - or anything that implies they have NOT YET clicked on "reply" - I'd be ok with it. But that does not seem to be your suggestion. So it's still a "no" for me and doesn't answer Mark's issue/question about the input order.
--
J

Statements made in messages to the beta group are the sole opinion of the author. :-)

It's dumb to buy smart water.



--
J

Statements made in messages to the beta group are the sole opinion of the author. :-)

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

J

Again, i have no idea if this second visual is inline with the suggestions made (or doable)  but thought I'd share - (i find visuals so much easier).

This one would toggle based on group default preferences and probably be a bit trickier on mobile because it's a bit harder with fingers to select via drop downs.

But it would follow the order you prefer and give weight to the group default.

Just thought I'd share as maybe helpful. Maybe not.

Maria

(second and last cup of coffee)





 

I'm confused. Where is the other option for replying in each case? T If the group default is "to group," the options could be "reply" or "reply to individual" (or whatever language - "reply privately" or whatever). If the group default is "to sender," the options could be "reply" or "reply to group" (again - whatever language). Or the choices could be independent of the default and say "reply to group" or "reply to sender" in either case. 

But in your visual, I see only one choice. There need to both options in each case.

Again: as long as the two operations (reply to group vs. reply to individual) are recognized, and treated, by the system as the two distinct operations they are, where you select one or the other first, before any message box comes up, I don't care about the language or how the screen looks. Those are details.

The problem in your suggestions here seems to be that the selection is missing. The user is allowed to choose "reply to group" if the default is "reply to sender" or vice-versa. I don't see where you're allowing them to just reply using the group default. ???

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

p.s. I need to extricate myself from this and drag myself offline in general. I'm going for a hike now. :-)
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

I'm headed out too, but to clarify that 2nd visual:

- The floating bar would say reply to group OR private reply/reply to sender based on the default group preference. Only one choice would be on the floating bar and it would specify if it's group or private (not just "reply") because newbies sometimes are not aware of what the default group setting is. So no ambiguity there.

-The other non default option (group or sender) would be in the more menu (something suggested in one of the posts in this thread and an additional way of lessening mix-ups)

- You'd be forced to pick either the default reply (group or sender) OR the non-default option which you'd find in the "more" menu

- Once you've picked WHO your reply is going to then the compose window opens up

- You write and then click send

If you changed your mind midway, I imagine you'd have to click "discard" and select one of the reply options again.

Have a great day everyone.

Maria


 

That's not what I see in your visual, but that's better. I'm out the door. Nice day.:-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2016, at 8:53 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

I'm headed out too, but to clarify that 2nd visual:

- The floating bar would say reply to group OR private reply/reply to sender based on the default group preference. Only one choice would be on the floating bar and it would specify if it's group or private (not just "reply") because newbies sometimes are not aware of what the default group setting is. So no ambiguity there.

-The other non default option (group or sender) would be in the more menu (something suggested in one of the posts in this thread and an additional way of lessening mix-ups)

- You'd be forced to pick either the default reply (group or sender) OR the non-default option which you'd find in the "more" menu

- Once you've picked WHO your reply is going to then the compose window opens up

- You write and then click send

If you changed your mind midway, I imagine you'd have to click "discard" and select one of the reply options again.

Have a great day everyone.

Maria


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


ro-esp
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:50 am, J_catlady wrote:


I was about to suggest that the subject line for an offlist message be *changed* to add the word "offlist," due to confusion on
the receiving end as well, not just the sending end.
Wasn't that already standard netiquette for decades? Or do you mean it should be added automatically at group.io's end (seems logical..)

I mentioned before how I and others are frequently confused by thinking a
message was posted onlist when it was actually offlist, because the title
stays the same and gmail groups the whole thing together.
I've never understood why Gmail is so popular anyway. It mainly stands out in yahoogroups and similar services because it doesn't show you the messages that you sent yourself. IIRC groups.io by-passes that somehow

groetjes, Ronaldo


 

Maria,

I wanted to share a mock-up I did that's a variation/hybrid on the
concept i saw on an APP version of a listserv i mentioned on a post in
this thread.
The main difference between yours and mine is that I'd use radio buttons for "Group" or "Sender (display name) offlist" rather than a toggle button. I think mine is less mysterious. And I'd place mine on a line of its own rather than off to the right (either between the compose box and the "Send" & "Discard" buttons, or above the Subject line).

a) default to the group default (thus encouraging the group culture)
Ditto.

Not to derail this discussion, but recall that the group Reply To option includes "Moderators".

b) make you do a step in order to activate the option of the non-default
option.
Ditto.

c) not "feel" email-y and not show actual email addresses
Mine would feel a bit more email-y, particularly if the option were put above the subject line, but wouldn't show addresses.

I feel that showing the display name of the "replyee" (why isn't that a word?) would help make the function clearer. I also prefer the term "Offlist" to "Private", as the word "private" carries a lot of baggage.

d) help reassure anyone who feels nervous that their private reply would
go public because that "group" button simply wouldn't be there and vice
versa if the default were sender and the greyed out button were toggled
to "group" instead of "private"
I wouldn't have a "Group" button at all - just "Send" (I don't like "Reply" here, you've already clicked "Reply", the action here is to send your reply).

e) add the words "private reply" or "offlist" to the subject
automatically
Ditto.

F) it would allow you to decide before you start to write who the
recipient is BUT you could change that midway or after if you changed
your mind.
Ditto.


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


 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 05:55 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
I don't like "Reply" here, you've already clicked "Reply", the action here is to send your reply).

But Maria has said that her idea now - like mine, unless I've completely misunderstood - is that these choices come up BEFORE the composition window comes up, i.e., BEFORE the user has already hit "Reply." Having the user "Reply" before any of this happens is the problem under consideration; it's what Mark wants to know if we think should change. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 06:11 pm, J_catlady wrote:
But Maria has said that her idea now - like mine, unless I've completely misunderstood - is that these choices come up BEFORE the composition window comes up,

I posted 2 mock-ups. No idea if either of them are possible. One was a hybrid re-interpretation based on of how I know another listserv that has an APP handles this issue during the composition/send step. The other was a visual based on the idea of selecting before the composition window even opens. 

I was trying to visualize the various ideas and potential ways of solving the mix-up issue, as well as the other concerns, that were shared in this thread. 

Maria



 

J,

The hitting of the single word "reply" FIRST nullifies the whole
solution being presented here.
Obviously I disagree. But I'm influenced by the email work-flow, where one normally clicks Reply first, then adjusts the To and CC if needed, then composes the message, then clicks "Send". That's what seems natural for me, but then I don't hang around on forums.

I could live with it either way, so long as all the functionality is there. Even in email there's the example of choosing between "Reply" or "Reply All" as the first step (but you still can correct it manually during message composition).

The two key functional points for me are:

1) You stay in context (as Brian described) - clicking PM (or Red Flag) doesn't land you somewhere else when you're done.

2) The message composition is fully functional, ideally identical, in all cases. That is, I wouldn't want to lose the ability to include a quote, or use the formatting toolbar, or add attachments, merely because of a different addressee for the reply.

A lesser point would be the ability to change your mind about who you want to send the reply to without having to discard your text and start over. I think that's a less common case, and mostly handled by Ctrl+A Ctrl+C (except on mobile, where it can be a pain).


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


 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 06:24 pm, HR Tech wrote:
I was trying to visualize the various ideas and potential ways of solving the mix-up issue, as well as the other concerns, that were shared in this thread. 

You wrote: "Once you've picked WHO your reply is going to then the compose window opens up." So I assumed you were agreeing that this is the best way. Perhaps you meant that for only one of your mockup scenarios. 

J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

J,

Having the user "Reply" before any of this happens is the problem under
consideration; it's what Mark wants to know if we think should change.
Mark also asked for other ideas on reducing the mixups.


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


 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 06:25 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm influenced by the email work-flow, where one normally clicks Reply first, then adjusts the To and CC if needed, then composes the message, then clicks "Send"

Ok. I see what you're getting at. But I still feel it's a wrong analogy. In email the assumption is that you're replying to the sender of the message (unless you change it afterwards, as you say, to include "reply all" or "cc" or whatever). In Groups.io, and in forums (yes, I realize Groups.io is not "just" a forum but it is also a forum), the assumption on clicking "reply" is "reply to the group." (It's true that if the group's default is "reply to sender," people would adjust to and expect the default; but that would seem to be the rarer case.) To me, it doesn't really match up.

A halfway measure making this more similar to email would be to AT LEAST have the designated recipient at the top of the screen, instead of the bottom. Even in email, you don't compose your message and at the bottom, click on "reply to" whoever.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.