Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
Olá Adrian e a todos. On Wednesday 02 September 2009 10:44:52 Adrian Lang wrote: I say we should not try to distinguish between resends and replies (in the database or user interface). First of all, the difference between these concepts is far from clear when resends may be edited. Second, I see no gain from doing this. Displaying both types of reactions in a conversation and with in_context link seems perfect to me. I like the ideas for twitter on this: http://s.twimg.com/retweet-dev-mocks-7-aug-09.png http://www.joedawsons.com/2009/08/retweeting-is-cheating-thread.html -- Hi, I'm BUGabundo, and I am Ubuntu (whyubuntu.com) (``-_-´´) http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB http://BUGabundo.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:24 PM, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote: I like the ideas for twitter on this: http://s.twimg.com/retweet-dev-mocks-7-aug-09.png http://www.joedawsons.com/2009/08/retweeting-is-cheating-thread.html I think some things in this mock up are nifty, but IMHO a major, major drawback of Twitter's approach is that there doesn't seem to be a way to edit a re-tweeted notice before you send it. I really, really want to do that. In Twitter's mockups, I only see a confirm step and that seems to retweet the entire notice, unedited. Not a fan. That said, the notion of being able to turn off receiving retweets is interesting. I think that idea sounds pretty good in theory. I'm concerned that it might end up feeling too much like the but-I'm-not- following-the-person-you're-replying-to debacle (I only see your @- replies to people I also follow), which I still really dislike in Twitter…. Hmm…. Which ideas, specifically, did you like in this, BUGabundo? Cheers, -Meitar Moscovitz Personal: http://maymay.net Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
Olá Mr e a todos. On Friday 04 September 2009 00:40:47 Mr. Meitar Moscovitz wrote: really want to do that. In Twitter's mockups, I only see a confirm step and that seems to retweet the entire notice, unedited. Not a fan. I like the idea to keep it clean. if u want to change it, then make it the old way :) That said, the notion of being able to turn off receiving retweets is interesting. I think that idea sounds pretty good in theory. I'm concerned that it might end up feeling too much like the but-I'm-not- following-the-person-you're-replying-to debacle (I only see your @- replies to people I also follow), which I still really dislike in Twitter…. Not as much as I do: http://twitter.zendesk.com/requests/522924 -- Hi, I'm BUGabundo, and I am Ubuntu (whyubuntu.com) (``-_-´´) http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB http://BUGabundo.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Craig Andrews wrote: What do we all think about the re-dent implementation in this merge request? http://gitorious.org/laconica/mainline/merge_requests/1391 I've seen a lot of discussion... but I'm not aware of any consensus. ~Craig So, from what I gathered in the discussions about this feature so far, the major sticking points are: * Use plain language; terminology like redent and retweet are alienating jargon. Hence, the merge request uses the recycling symbol to avoid service- or brand-specific iconography, and the term repeat to avoid jargon and stick with plain English. (It seems reshare as well as forward are other options for less jargon-y terms to replace redent. Personally, I like repeat best.) * Do not automatically send a notice without giving the user a chance to edit it first. The merge request uses the implementation of the reply functionality as a blueprint for the repeat functionality, so it doesn't send any notices implicitly. There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus on how to distinguish the repeated notice from other kinds of notices. A simplistic option is to use in-reply-to (which is what this merge request does). There also doesn't appear to be much consensus on how this should be exposed graphically, so I took the route I saw Identi.ca *client* apps using, which was the addition of a new button. Admittedly, I think this is a pretty low-tech solution since it's entirely client-side and user experience focused, but I actually think that's the best way to start figuring out whether or not more sophisticated functionality in the database or OMB protocol itself is needed. That is to say, this button scratches my itch for the time being and I want to see how other people react to it. :) Cheers, -Meitar Moscovitz Personal: http://maymay.net Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
Whatever direction this goes in, I think it bears considerable thought and research. For example, Yahoo Meme offers a repost button along with a reposts stat (not unlike the Retweet chicklets going around): http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3880766540/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3880767764/ Meanwhile, Tumblr has long had a reblog capability: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3880772126/ This behavior is not new — but may not have prior precedent in formats/feeds. in-reply-to may be the current mode, but it's unclear whether that is differentiated sufficiently from the original purpose, which was to show a response or reaction to a post, rather than a resyndication/further propagation. Perhaps the distinction is meaningless, but before deciding on anything (but the UI, per se), I think it's worth looking at previous examples of this behavior, and how it's been internalized by communities. Reinvention in the enemy of standardization. Chris On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Mr. Meitar Moscovitz meit...@gmail.comwrote: On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Craig Andrews wrote: What do we all think about the re-dent implementation in this merge request? http://gitorious.org/laconica/mainline/merge_requests/1391 I've seen a lot of discussion... but I'm not aware of any consensus. ~Craig So, from what I gathered in the discussions about this feature so far, the major sticking points are: * Use plain language; terminology like redent and retweet are alienating jargon. Hence, the merge request uses the recycling symbol to avoid service- or brand-specific iconography, and the term repeat to avoid jargon and stick with plain English. (It seems reshare as well as forward are other options for less jargon-y terms to replace redent. Personally, I like repeat best.) * Do not automatically send a notice without giving the user a chance to edit it first. The merge request uses the implementation of the reply functionality as a blueprint for the repeat functionality, so it doesn't send any notices implicitly. There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus on how to distinguish the repeated notice from other kinds of notices. A simplistic option is to use in-reply-to (which is what this merge request does). There also doesn't appear to be much consensus on how this should be exposed graphically, so I took the route I saw Identi.ca *client* apps using, which was the addition of a new button. Admittedly, I think this is a pretty low-tech solution since it's entirely client-side and user experience focused, but I actually think that's the best way to start figuring out whether or not more sophisticated functionality in the database or OMB protocol itself is needed. That is to say, this button scratches my itch for the time being and I want to see how other people react to it. :) Cheers, -Meitar Moscovitz Personal: http://maymay.net Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev -- Chris Messina Open Web Advocate Personal: http://factoryjoe.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com Diso Project: http://diso-project.org OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:06:02 -0700 Mr. Meitar Moscovitz meit...@gmail.com wrote: There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus on how to distinguish the repeated notice from other kinds of notices. A simplistic option is to use in-reply-to (which is what this merge request does). I say we should not try to distinguish between resends and replies (in the database or user interface). First of all, the difference between these concepts is far from clear when resends may be edited. Second, I see no gain from doing this. Displaying both types of reactions in a conversation and with in_context link seems perfect to me. This is not related to content-band signaling using for example a resend symbol. Regards, Adrian ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:44 AM, Adrian Lang wrote: I say we should not try to distinguish between resends and replies (in the database or user interface). What about in machine-readable output streams? I ask since I just looked over a patch I actually like from Toby Inkster[0] wherein repeated notices have additional semantic metadata associated with them in RSS 1.0 and Atom feeds. It doesn't alter the database or user interface in any way, but it does add some useful metadata all the same. First of all, the difference between these concepts is far from clear when resends may be edited. Second, I see no gain from doing this. Displaying both types of reactions in a conversation and with in_context link seems perfect to me. This is not related to content-band signaling using for example a resend symbol. Regards, Adrian For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with you that there doesn't seem to be a benefit to an end-user to visually distinguish between repeated notices or replies (♺ vs @ is already enough), and the less cognitive clutter users need to deal with, the better. The first thing I do when I see a lot of buttons is touch none of them. :) Cheers, -Meitar Moscovitz Personal: http://maymay.net Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com [0] http://gitorious.org/~meitar/laconica/meitar/commit/ d62b8ec987d7eaa331741e960d2c9c036a2d4df5 ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent standard
Chris Messina wrote: This is a very delicate feature — and one that we should wait on to see how Twitter moves forward with this — if only to better understand the ramifications and reactions from the community when they switch their API. Strong disagree. First, there's a well-known system for doing redents/retweets. Let's add the button so we don't have to keep typing this stuff in all the time; I'm really sick of it. Second, if a better system for doing retweets comes out of Twitter, and changes how our users expect things to work, we'll adapt our backend data to it without changing the UI. Meitar: I'll review your patch and let's see if it works better for 0.8.2 or 0.9.0. My guess is 0.8.2. Thanks for doing the work, and I'm looking forward to implementing this simple and straightforward feature. -Evan -- Evan Prodromou CEO, StatusNet, Inc. e...@status.net - http://identi.ca/evan - +1-514-554-3826 ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent
Adrian Lang wrote: I say we should not try to distinguish between resends and replies (in the database or user interface). First of all, the difference between these concepts is far from clear when resends may be edited. Second, I see no gain from doing this. Displaying both types of reactions in a conversation and with in_context link seems perfect to me. +1 -Evan -- Evan Prodromou CEO, Control Yourself, Inc. e...@controlyourself.ca - http://identi.ca/evan - +1-514-554-3826 ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent standard
On 30 Aug 2009, at 21:57, Sarven Capadisli wrote: Which leads me to this imperfect idea when a user clicks to favorite a notice item: * add it to user's favorites * automagically send a notice like ♻ @evan The quick brown fox and make it an in-reply-to the original I don't like the idea of this being automatically sent in my name. Maybe clicking the favourite button could automatically pre-fill the What's up? form, but rely on me clicking send before it actually got sent? (But avoid over-writing any messages I'm half-way through composing!) Also, is there something better than in-reply-to that we can do? A redent is not logically a reply - it's a forward. It would be great if replies and forwards could be distinguished in the database by more than a Unicode character as a convention. (See http:// danbri.org/words/2009/06/16/415.) -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent standard
On Sep 1, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: Also, is there something better than in-reply-to that we can do? A redent is not logically a reply - it's a forward. It would be great if replies and forwards could be distinguished in the database by more than a Unicode character as a convention. (See http://danbri.org/words/2009/06/16/415 .) Hmm…does repeated (or maybe repeats) make sense here? Using in- reply-to as I've done in my experiment branch[0 successfully creates a conversation thread within StatusNet like replies do and I *think* it's possible to track a series of notices in both directions if a re- shared notice just uses in-reply-to the one it's sharing, but I'm not sure. On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Chris Messina wrote: Resharing, furthermore, is really the same thing as forwarding an email, and it should be treated as such. It just has a different name because the recipient is largely unknown (whereas in an email, you must select your recipients). Do email messages contain some kind of this was a forwarded message header other than the conventional Fwd: prefix for a subject line? I'm not aware of something like this, but it's an interesting thought experiment to try to imagine the reverse of whatever reality is and see how the pieces fit together for OpenMicroBlogging. Cheers, -Meitar Moscovitz Personal: http://maymay.net Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com EXTERNAL REFERENCES: [0] http://gitorious.org/~meitar/laconica/meitar/commit/954a744b2cdac89ce7e4284217f18a2609633c57 ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent standard
On 1 Sep 2009, at 15:22, Mr. Meitar Moscovitz wrote: Do email messages contain some kind of this was a forwarded message header other than the conventional Fwd: prefix for a subject line? I've not done an extensive analysis, but having spent a few minutes e- mail myself, it appears that at least Apple's Mail.app does have an out-of-band mechanism for indicating whether a message is a reply or a forward. Replies include both 'In-Reply-To' and 'References' headers; forwards include just a 'References' header. That said, the Internet Message Format used in email is archaic by Internet standards - almost unchanged in over 27 years. (RFC2822 was a pretty minor update.) While it's been very successful, there are probably aspects of its data model that can be improved upon. -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent standard
This is a very delicate feature — and one that we should wait on to see how Twitter moves forward with this — if only to better understand the ramifications and reactions from the community when they switch their API. My thoughts, greatly influenced by my work on the activity streams spec ( http://activitystrea.ms): * *favorite* is a specific kind of verb that is typically personal in nature. It's not all that different from bookmarking. Favorites may or may not be public, but the original motivation is to save it for later — like a positive flagging. * *like* is a gesture — and may be aggregated across many users — or an individual user (I'm thinking FriendFeed) — to show popularity or inform a recommendation system — but is more casual, temporal and lackadaisical than favoriting. It's definitely a different user intention than favoriting. * *voting up* is also a gesture, but the intention is to have a vote recorded and displayed numerically. The difference between voting up and liking is subtle, but important, largely because of the interface involved. Voting up typically results in a live counter being updated when a user votes something up; when you like something, the change is indicated by the actuator changing (i.e. from Like to You like this). * *resharing* is what we're really talking about here — and I think the jargon around *retweeting* and *redenting* is actually quite alienating. At every step of the way, you have to think about an interface element ending up in some random UI or application that you didn't design, or that lacks consistent context. I get frustrated enough with Microsoft Word and its ilk for some of the obtuse words it uses to describe things. I think there's something to learn here, and it's to use the most accurate, familiar word to describe functionality as possible. Therefore, if StatusNet is going to offer a specific interface dedicated to *resharing*, it should be called by its proper name and make it easy for someone to complete the task that they wish to complete. As I've followed the conversation around Twitter's retweet changes, I think that it's critical that the reshare functionality not strip out one's ability to annotate the original content with content of their own — even if that means changing the original content to fit within the limitations of a post. Resharing, furthermore, is really the same thing as *forwarding* an email, and it should be treated as such. It just has a different name because the recipient is largely unknown (whereas in an email, you must select your recipients). I'm happy to elaborate further, but wanted to start there. Chris On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Sarven Capadisli csar...@status.netwrote: Thinking further about the redent proposal here: http://status.net/trac/ticket/939 We should take care with this feature because adding it would increase the cognitive load for a notice item. I'd also like suggest that we review this feature a little further before pushing it out the door as it will have implications. So, here is how I'd define the following actions: * Favoriting: flagging a notice for personal use (e.g., appreciation, bookmark) * Redenting: flagging a notice such that one wants to share it with everyone Some observations: * Both actions are public. * Both are essentially vote ups. * The act of favoriting can be seen as a status in and of it self. * Redenting is important enough that it should be trackable. * Favoriting is closer to 'liking', and redenting is closer to 'spreading'. Which leads me to this imperfect idea when a user clicks to favorite a notice item: * add it to user's favorites * automagically send a notice like ♻ @evan The quick brown fox and make it an in-reply-to the original * if the notice is great than 140 chars (because of the addition of ♻ @evan to the original) we can perhaps do some truncating from the end. All this leads me to think about the act of sharing. If I click on something like 'Share', I could redent and add it to my favorites at the same time. And, what if it gave the opportunity to edit before sharing (which is a common practise)? So, what do you think are the implications for human experience, API, storage, bandwidth, and ..? -Sarven ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev -- Chris Messina Open Web Advocate Personal: http://factoryjoe.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com Diso Project: http://diso-project.org OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
Re: [Laconica-dev] Redent standard
On 8/30/09 6:08 PM, Mr. Meitar Moscovitz wrote: On Aug 30, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote: And, what if it gave the opportunity to edit before sharing (which is a common practise)? I do like that. I'll often find a share-worthy notice but I'll add a !group or a #tag to it before I send it, so getting the chance to edit before sharing seems necessary to me. Also be careful about automatic truncation before you provide that editing... I frequently find that the most important bit of a notice -- say, the end part of a URL -- is cut off when forwarding/retweeting/redenting in Nambu on my iPhone. I then need to go back to the web interface, cut-n-paste, and manually edit the notice until it fits. For me, it's a much better user experience to copy the whole thing initially, then let the me trim it down by hand if it needs it. -- brion ___ Laconica-dev mailing list Laconica-dev@laconi.ca http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
