In article <7f0531ae-9bee-8305-d919-38b6f0cf7640@xxxxxxxx> you write: >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. I'm with Dave here. The IETF has a long history of guessing wrong about UX design. > 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. I wouldn't put a lot of effort into it, since I don't see any reason to expect us to come up with useful concerns, either. >> it is well established that spammers will exploit just about any >> communication channel available to them. That's not true at all. They exploit channels that let them broadcast a lot of messages (counted at least in millions) at little or no cost. Even though it would be technically easy for spammers to subscribe to mailing lists and send spam, they don't because the return is too low. R's, John -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
