Topics

locked Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:13 am, David P. Dillard wrote:
We should encourage quilting list owners and moderators to participate. They seem to know a great deal about handling threads!!!

 GROOOOOOOOOOOAN!!!

Who can ban this guy?!   [I hope any sort of humor indicating emoticon is not necessary]
--
Brian

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


David P. Dillard
 

I think this discussion is missing some very important input in this discussion. We should encourage quilting list owners and moderators to participate. They seem to know a great deal about handling threads!!!





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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, J_catlady wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:53 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
The goals of private reply convenience and not having the options side-by-side in the standard thread reply
mechanism are not mutually exclusive.
 Absolutely. Agreed.


 

Brian, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. -J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

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

 I have hated, hated, hated this feature, as currently implemented, because if one is receiving messages via e-mail and web interface it gets really, really confusing to determine what you're looking at with ease.

As far as I am concerned, a private reply should include nothing and the person composing same should make the subject whatever they want and do any cut and paste from the original post text manually.   I've been doing that for years elsewhere, and most often I have no text cut and paste unless I happen to be launching into a private point-by-point discussion on something.  My subects tend to be along the lines of, "About that [insert subject or part subject from forum] post on beta."

This also is another way to make the user think about exactly why they're sending a private reply and what they actually want it to say.
--
Brian

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


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

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

 I have hated, hated, hated this feature, as currently implemented, because if one is receiving messages via e-mail and web interface it gets really, really confusing to determine what you're looking at with ease.

As far as I am concerned, a private reply should include nothing and the person composing same should make the subject whatever they want and do any cut and paste from the original post text manually.   I've been doing that for years elsewhere, and most often I have no text cut and paste unless I happen to be launching into a private point-by-point discussion on something.  My subects tend to be along the lines of, "About that [insert subject or part subject from forum] post on beta."

This also is another way to make the user think about exactly why they're sending a private reply and what they actually want it to say.
--
Brian

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


 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:53 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
The goals of private reply convenience and not having the options side-by-side in the standard thread reply mechanism are not mutually exclusive.

 Absolutely. Agreed.



Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

OK, folks, hear me clearly:  None, not a one, of the methods I posted about, and included snapshots from, involve leaving thread view.

All are invoked, specifically in these cases, by clicking the link for the user's userid that appears as a part of each and every message.  Now, I will admit, that once you do that and choose to send a PM that you are often thrown into a separate window or tab to complete that task, but when you close it upon completion you're dropped right back where you were.

I am not proposing extricating it from ease of use.  I am proposing making it well-nigh impossible to accidentally do one for the other via an accidental button press.

The goals of private reply convenience and not having the options side-by-side in the standard thread reply mechanism are not mutually exclusive.
--
Brian

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


 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:40 am, HR Tech wrote:
It's important they remain with the same subject line as the thread,

Interesting because 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.

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 have found, and continued to find, this extremely inconvenient. I personally avoid the "send to sender" function because of this, and I make it a practice in sending a private message to start a new thread instead containing the word "offlist" and advise everyone in my group to do the same. 

J


Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:30 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
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.

I'm going to start saying Jinx! ;)

Ok so I don't agree at all about removing the option to reply privately from the web interface thread view... But taking your idea of extricating it to a different place... What if the reply to sender button was both reworded, had the blue and different icon AND was moved to the left hand side? So that it's not in the "reply" area? 

Maria 



 

Especially not other planets. LOL.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


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 



 

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  



 
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 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


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


Duane
 

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

Duane


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:25 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


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 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


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


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.