Mario VavtiDo we want to rename "Privacy groups" to "Access lists" and "Forums" to "Groups" in Hubzilla 7.0?
Yes
No
I have a better idea and will post it in the comments
Poll ended at .
Mike MacgirvinWhatever you decide to call them, Circles and Aspects and Privacy Groups are nothing more than personal mailing lists. Groups/Forums are nothing but listservs or USENET newsgroups or externally defined lists. You can call them Foo and Bar if you want. One is a list you create/manage yourself and one is a list that is managed by a membership workflow which others can initiate. That's really as deep as it goes.
Mark@mike technically you are right.
But in The Netherlands we call a microwave oven a "Magnetron". The magnetron is the actual working element that heats up your food (and emits the microwaves). So we Dutch might be technically correct: no one besides us will understand.
My advice: do not name it foo and bar ;)
A lot of projects forget it will be the users that actually make a piece of software useful. You can make a great program, but forget the eye candy and naming and it will never get any traction...
I asked some complete novice users about what program they wanted to use for their "Facebook alternative". Most liked the way diaspora* looks, feels and works. But it has no groups, so that was just not an option. Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
But in The Netherlands we call a microwave oven a "Magnetron". The magnetron is the actual working element that heats up your food (and emits the microwaves). So we Dutch might be technically correct: no one besides us will understand.
My advice: do not name it foo and bar ;)
A lot of projects forget it will be the users that actually make a piece of software useful. You can make a great program, but forget the eye candy and naming and it will never get any traction...
I asked some complete novice users about what program they wanted to use for their "Facebook alternative". Most liked the way diaspora* looks, feels and works. But it has no groups, so that was just not an option. Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
Hans van Zijst@Mark
Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
Hubzilla would be a great alternative, but it looks a bit clunky when compared to Facebook. And the learning curve is probably a tiny bit steeper too. I'm still struggling every now and then. Can't seem to send private messages, for example :-D
Try explaining #Matrix / #Element to non-techies... I've done that for a few years and succeeded in getting quite some of my friends on board, but some keep complaining that it's "difficult". Which it is, if you compare it to the messaging app from the Evil Empire.
Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
Hubzilla would be a great alternative, but it looks a bit clunky when compared to Facebook. And the learning curve is probably a tiny bit steeper too. I'm still struggling every now and then. Can't seem to send private messages, for example :-D
Try explaining #Matrix / #Element to non-techies... I've done that for a few years and succeeded in getting quite some of my friends on board, but some keep complaining that it's "difficult". Which it is, if you compare it to the messaging app from the Evil Empire.
oRx-Qx pirateradio@Mario Vavti Oh yes, sorry, I meant App.
I was flying my debug drone over Hubzilla Cybercity UI some more, eventually shot some bugs
Adressing PG results in lock icon with alt-text Private message. It is nothing channel-related, it is something like Group Direct Message. What matters: Do people know to whom it is addressed? If they are just on BCC, the actual group (or access list) should be Undisclosed recipients.
As it is not a channel message (to channel contacts) it should be a Group DM (with DM icon) now it is something in between: kind of App message, with the App being Privacy Groups, with the icon of lock.
The app has the same icon as Connections, so showing the message with its app icon would be mistaken with posting to channel connections. Maybe the app icon should be having a lock on side of the silhouettes. And such icon should be next to name at the message header.
This visibility turns CC instead of BCC or does it create group/access list public with some identity like Channel? How do people know they are on this list and who sees the posts/comments? Does it create something like unvoluntary Google Group? Should this be called Circle? Can people leave/unsubscribe or block PG? Can connections comment and see others comment in both states of the switch? In state when members are not disclosed, should they see others comments? Probably not. Should not that be a Direct message then? Or Undisclosed Group Direct message (Bcc}?
What was called Private Message created with Privacy groups App is in Public and restricted messages in HQ. On forum channel, there is no message, so the Forum channel should not be allowed as recipient (Privacy group member). Maybe the switch in previous image should be formulated in opposite (members are undisclosed) default On the right side. And here it would move them from left tab (Public and public named lists) right to the DM and Undisclosed Group DM tab.
Sorry if my drone resolution and line noise makes me missing something, otherwise I would say as @Hans van Zijst, yeah just a bit clunky.
I was flying my debug drone over Hubzilla Cybercity UI some more, eventually shot some bugs
Adressing PG results in lock icon with alt-text Private message. It is nothing channel-related, it is something like Group Direct Message. What matters: Do people know to whom it is addressed? If they are just on BCC, the actual group (or access list) should be Undisclosed recipients.
As it is not a channel message (to channel contacts) it should be a Group DM (with DM icon) now it is something in between: kind of App message, with the App being Privacy Groups, with the icon of lock.
The app has the same icon as Connections, so showing the message with its app icon would be mistaken with posting to channel connections. Maybe the app icon should be having a lock on side of the silhouettes. And such icon should be next to name at the message header.
This visibility turns CC instead of BCC or does it create group/access list public with some identity like Channel? How do people know they are on this list and who sees the posts/comments? Does it create something like unvoluntary Google Group? Should this be called Circle? Can people leave/unsubscribe or block PG? Can connections comment and see others comment in both states of the switch? In state when members are not disclosed, should they see others comments? Probably not. Should not that be a Direct message then? Or Undisclosed Group Direct message (Bcc}?
What was called Private Message created with Privacy groups App is in Public and restricted messages in HQ. On forum channel, there is no message, so the Forum channel should not be allowed as recipient (Privacy group member). Maybe the switch in previous image should be formulated in opposite (members are undisclosed) default On the right side. And here it would move them from left tab (Public and public named lists) right to the DM and Undisclosed Group DM tab.
Sorry if my drone resolution and line noise makes me missing something, otherwise I would say as @Hans van Zijst, yeah just a bit clunky.
oRx-Qx pirateradio - [email protected]
@oRx-Qx pirateradio there might be some misunderstandings involved...
The privacy groups app is an app to manage privacy groups. You can create new ones, delete them and manage membership. It is not an app to create posts. The lock icon would be the better choice for this app, i agree. This will be changed in 7.0
Any channel can decide if it wants to receive content from other channels or not. This has nothing to do with the scope of a message.
The difference between a private message and a direct message is that a direct message is addressed to individual channels, while a private message is addressed to a group of channels. In hq we show private messages and public message in the same tab because having a separate tab for public messages seemed overkill. Direct messages are something more personal, hence they got a separate tab.
The privacy groups app is an app to manage privacy groups. You can create new ones, delete them and manage membership. It is not an app to create posts. The lock icon would be the better choice for this app, i agree. This will be changed in 7.0
Any channel can decide if it wants to receive content from other channels or not. This has nothing to do with the scope of a message.
The difference between a private message and a direct message is that a direct message is addressed to individual channels, while a private message is addressed to a group of channels. In hq we show private messages and public message in the same tab because having a separate tab for public messages seemed overkill. Direct messages are something more personal, hence they got a separate tab.
@Mario Vavti What I was thinking about is icon like this
Because it is not only about access, it is sbout "locked" group of contacts. If you take point of view from channel owner, you just want to limit access or whatever. But have in mind these people are humans with their needs and rights. From their point they are in some group which they cannot leave and where they do not know the others. They know just that they are receiving something in limited audience.
On other messenger services, when somebody makes group by arbitrary choice of contacts and starts messaging them, you have an option to leave. Not just block channel, because it is your relative organising a christmas party which takes a lot of messages but happens you are not interested. In Hubzilla now it is something like employer workgroup. In Google groups you can put people to group without their consent just if they are from your organisation, others receive invitation.
If there is an option to leave, enter, address all others, it is just an overlapping functionality with channels (Social restricted or Forum restricted / newly would be Group restricted). If the PG is really undisclosed, they should receive DM, not a post. Precisely, Undisclosed group DM, because they know, they are in some group, but cannot post to others, just reply to sender, because they they should not be receiving recipient list.
So the Privacy Groups App is best in just making Undisclosed groups. That is something what is made any time when somebody picks arbitrary recipients from channel contacts (and should take the "locked group" icon in such case), so moreover core functionality, App is just to name them for the owner.
Because it is not only about access, it is sbout "locked" group of contacts. If you take point of view from channel owner, you just want to limit access or whatever. But have in mind these people are humans with their needs and rights. From their point they are in some group which they cannot leave and where they do not know the others. They know just that they are receiving something in limited audience.
On other messenger services, when somebody makes group by arbitrary choice of contacts and starts messaging them, you have an option to leave. Not just block channel, because it is your relative organising a christmas party which takes a lot of messages but happens you are not interested. In Hubzilla now it is something like employer workgroup. In Google groups you can put people to group without their consent just if they are from your organisation, others receive invitation.
If there is an option to leave, enter, address all others, it is just an overlapping functionality with channels (Social restricted or Forum restricted / newly would be Group restricted). If the PG is really undisclosed, they should receive DM, not a post. Precisely, Undisclosed group DM, because they know, they are in some group, but cannot post to others, just reply to sender, because they they should not be receiving recipient list.
So the Privacy Groups App is best in just making Undisclosed groups. That is something what is made any time when somebody picks arbitrary recipients from channel contacts (and should take the "locked group" icon in such case), so moreover core functionality, App is just to name them for the owner.
oRx-Qx pirateradio - [email protected]
Privacy Groups are only "undisclosed" because the Hubzilla implementation wasn't finished. In Zap and other derivative projects, the button to disclose members actually works and other list members can often see who was included; although disclosure isn't required and privacy is the default behaviour.
Once again, these are personal mailing lists. Nothing more. Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them and you control their privacy and access restrictions. In this software, you control the things you own. You have no control over something that somebody else owns.
Once again, these are personal mailing lists. Nothing more. Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them and you control their privacy and access restrictions. In this software, you control the things you own. You have no control over something that somebody else owns.
@Mario Vavti
Privacy groups are none of your contacts business.
@mike
Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them
Well depends if we want 1990's ethos software or 2020's legal and social ethos software. We in Europe have GDPR legislation and it says you cannot process somebody's personal information (like email address) without clearly asked and voluntarily given consent. Corporations are sued and fined billions for making user email lists without consent and using them for other purpose. Following some channel does not give any consent for being added on any secret mailinglists. Mailinglists have to provide unsubscribe link in every message. Digital public space standards shifted and i wrote examples what are contemporary standard procedures regarding messaging people.
And if those privacy groups are personal address lists and recipients can reply just to sender they should receive DM. I do not know how to explain somebody what is a difference between a message with envelope and message with lock (or key). All I can say that they are basically the same but lock counterintuitively to the icon meaning that more people are receiving that message. If they pick one recipient it will be envelope and if they pick two or more it will be lock. So I try another icon.
Privacy groups are none of your contacts business.
@mike
Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them
Well depends if we want 1990's ethos software or 2020's legal and social ethos software. We in Europe have GDPR legislation and it says you cannot process somebody's personal information (like email address) without clearly asked and voluntarily given consent. Corporations are sued and fined billions for making user email lists without consent and using them for other purpose. Following some channel does not give any consent for being added on any secret mailinglists. Mailinglists have to provide unsubscribe link in every message. Digital public space standards shifted and i wrote examples what are contemporary standard procedures regarding messaging people.
And if those privacy groups are personal address lists and recipients can reply just to sender they should receive DM. I do not know how to explain somebody what is a difference between a message with envelope and message with lock (or key). All I can say that they are basically the same but lock counterintuitively to the icon meaning that more people are receiving that message. If they pick one recipient it will be envelope and if they pick two or more it will be lock. So I try another icon.
oRx-Qx pirateradio - [email protected]
@oRx-Qx pirateradio it is a bit harder than this. An email address is not always personally identifiable information. It depends on who is processing the information: would that person/company be able to trace this email address back to a natural person without to much effort? (Browsing to anonymized data usually constitute to much effort.) To be fair: email usually is PII.
For instance: a licence plate is not PII. Unless you work at an insurance company and you can easily trace that plate back to the owner of the car. For that organization it is PII and they need to treat it as such.
In case of a message/post in Hubzilla chances are that you are not sharing any personally identifiable information at all. And it would be easy to put this in the user agreement upon signing up on a hub. If you then connect to another hub that would be your choice...
And to be real: these laws are not meant to protect the general public at all. They are meant to protect the mega corporations who can spend millions on an entire "privacy framework" and loads of "legitimate interests" bull. Smaller companies and the foss community is hit much harder, even though they do not aggregate data on the idiotic scale of Google/MS/Amazon/etc. at all. Trust me: these laws where lobbied for by those big companies. Does not say you should not make sure u are abiding the law, but just for some background.
For instance: a licence plate is not PII. Unless you work at an insurance company and you can easily trace that plate back to the owner of the car. For that organization it is PII and they need to treat it as such.
In case of a message/post in Hubzilla chances are that you are not sharing any personally identifiable information at all. And it would be easy to put this in the user agreement upon signing up on a hub. If you then connect to another hub that would be your choice...
And to be real: these laws are not meant to protect the general public at all. They are meant to protect the mega corporations who can spend millions on an entire "privacy framework" and loads of "legitimate interests" bull. Smaller companies and the foss community is hit much harder, even though they do not aggregate data on the idiotic scale of Google/MS/Amazon/etc. at all. Trust me: these laws where lobbied for by those big companies. Does not say you should not make sure u are abiding the law, but just for some background.
@Mark Well, personally, I do not like to live in paranoid situation, stressed if I make some mistake giving some information which can be abused. So I like to choose software, which is trustworthy, which does not have any privacy backdoors, which says clearly what is happening and which makes clear what will happen by my decisions and keeps me safe that nothing else and unexpected will happen. That is what can be called community principles. Sorry for mentioning GDPR, but I use Hubzilla also for work and people in film archive which is standard legal entity and its services have to comply to law.
And what I was trying to say, when you take an email client and i use it a lot, i receive several messages per day, really... In email in most clients you see in every message From: field, To: field. Those are very important information. Sometimes the message is for me from somebody, sometimes is bulk, sometimes is to some group. I always need to see simply from who and to whom it was sent. Sometimes this is extended by CC and Bcc fields. With CC a group is created where all recipients know each other and can reply to each other. With Bcc an undisclosed group is created, when recipients do not know others, do not know who else received that message. Also important information, because I know, when replying, I am just answering the sender and not all. Email clients basicly shows you this information in clearly readable form to inform you and you can make decisions what to do and that will happen. With mailinglist Reply to: is also used and all of this is very complex system, but just basic in comparison to contemporary social networking and messaging. I tried to show with hubzilla UI screenshots, that this is not clearly readable and predictable what kind of message I am receiving or sending and who sees when I reply. Not only by terminology used but also by icons and corresponding UI elements. That is uncomfortable feeling and extremely hard to explain to new people trying to use Hubzilla. When they do something simple but on different places in Hubzilla it has different names and undecipherable outcomes, they step back. People should know and easily see any time when they have individual privacy, when they are part of a group and which group, how they decide on group membership, how they talk to group or public. On this simple human level ethical community principles the social software UI should provide polite and aesthetic navigation. Not for the police or big-tech interests, but for joyful personal social networking. Just my opinion.
And what I was trying to say, when you take an email client and i use it a lot, i receive several messages per day, really... In email in most clients you see in every message From: field, To: field. Those are very important information. Sometimes the message is for me from somebody, sometimes is bulk, sometimes is to some group. I always need to see simply from who and to whom it was sent. Sometimes this is extended by CC and Bcc fields. With CC a group is created where all recipients know each other and can reply to each other. With Bcc an undisclosed group is created, when recipients do not know others, do not know who else received that message. Also important information, because I know, when replying, I am just answering the sender and not all. Email clients basicly shows you this information in clearly readable form to inform you and you can make decisions what to do and that will happen. With mailinglist Reply to: is also used and all of this is very complex system, but just basic in comparison to contemporary social networking and messaging. I tried to show with hubzilla UI screenshots, that this is not clearly readable and predictable what kind of message I am receiving or sending and who sees when I reply. Not only by terminology used but also by icons and corresponding UI elements. That is uncomfortable feeling and extremely hard to explain to new people trying to use Hubzilla. When they do something simple but on different places in Hubzilla it has different names and undecipherable outcomes, they step back. People should know and easily see any time when they have individual privacy, when they are part of a group and which group, how they decide on group membership, how they talk to group or public. On this simple human level ethical community principles the social software UI should provide polite and aesthetic navigation. Not for the police or big-tech interests, but for joyful personal social networking. Just my opinion.