On 2/26/2021 4:07 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <cf05c85a-1674-5c23-2eff-6d5b7f9a3736@xxxxxxxx> you write:
On 2/26/2021 2:54 PM, John Levine wrote:
For example something like the common mechanism of showing the symbol
and then putting a count next to it, for the number of responses that
were received using it, does not work if the 'symbol' can be a long
string of arbitrary text.
It only works if there's a small controlled vocabulary, but it doesn't
matter what the vocabulary is. There are over 3500 Unicode emoji
and exponentially more if you add modifiers like skin tone, so that's
not very controlled either.
If there is, really, no limit to what can be put there, then there is,
really, infinite variety possible for every message, in terms of the
physical characteristics of what needs displaying.
If the vocabulary is merely graphic symbols, a natural working set will
develop among a set of users, even if one isn't imposed.
The Ux design constraints between these two are quite different. The
first is essentially unbounded (and I believe has little field
experience beyond just being a message body portion.)
The second has quite a lot of field experience and is demonstrably useful.
There is a difference between attempting to specify the details of UI
behavior, here, versus ignoring potential effects upon such designs.
There is also a difference between offering flexibility just because we
can, versus offering it because it has clear utility.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
