On 1/20/2021 2:49 PM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:45 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
"appropriately" is too vague, IMHO. some guidance on how this
should be presented is called for, I think. otherwise this is no
better than the "me too" or "*rofl*" messages we already had.
Forgive me, but it is important that this specification NOT specify
or give substantial guidance about presentation choices.
I don't mean very specific guidance, but some wording about whether the
reactions should be aggregated or not?
Even that level of guidance is, IMO, far too specific. The simple
reason is that there is no empirical basis for it, and certainly not
enough to put it into a standard.
To be clear, my concern is not that the suggestion is unreasonable, but
that user interface design problems are littered with choices that were
reasonable but turned out to be wrong.
UX really is an entirely different design context from lower-level work.
Efficacy is affected in fundamentally different ways. Humans being
notably different than computers, and average humans being notably
different from engineers...
Having a section that raises concerns, rather than suggesting approaches
or solutions, seems entirely reasonable to me. Even if the concern
turns out to be wrong, there's no danger in listing issues. But we
really do need to make /all/ presentation and handling issues at the
user level up to the people tasks with knowing how to do that.
or some wording that reactions
will not necessarily be presented in any specific order, neither
chronologically, origin-wise nor thematically.
I don't think that would be any more restrictive than the language
about the use of base-emojis.
Given the points I repeated, above, you are, of course, still welcome to
suggest text and see whether folk support its inclusion.
that ties in to point 4 - the spammer can send an innocuous
message, and the actual attention grabbing text via reactions to
their own message.
Perhaps you can point to some empirical research that substantiates
this threat?
it is well established that spammers will exploit just about any
communication channel available to them.
It is NOT well-established that everything a spammer does causes
problems. We should create standards that deal not just with behaviors
that are intended to help a spammer, but with behaviors that actually do.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
