Denise Paolucci writes:
>In other words, it's as-closely replicating the behavior of LJ's
>visibility model as is possible with the change to the system. You'll
>know who possibly *could* be reading the friend's post that you're
>reading, but you won't know for sure if it's filtered to a more
>restrictive subset or not unless the user chooses to disclose this fact.
FWIW, is there really a good reason to -not- have a different icon for
"this post is locked" and "this post is filtered?" (obviously, one
should not automatically display the name of a filter and who is on
it; that's different, though I could see having "public filters" which
were listed and/or visible on posts, and "private filters" which
weren't except that a post was filtered)?
I mean, given that someone -could- have a filter that encompassed
their entire journal if they wanted to confuse the issue, isn't it
useful to both the journal owner and readers to distinguish between
"everyone on my trust list can see this" and "you are among a subset
of the people on my trust list who can see this; don't assume everyone
on that list can and accidentally spill info to someone not in this
filter" without having the owner have to do extra work? Is it really
beneficial for this sort of confusion to be default?
--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^-- "Did you know, if you increment enough, you /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ get an extra digit?" "I knew," weeps Six. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\ "We knew. But we had forgotten." '---''(_/--' (_/-'
_______________________________________________
dw-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
