3 ms·

Apart from whether "publicly searchable" should be an explicit / implicit setting, this seems like something that could also largely be mitigated with some simp

Apart from whether "publicly searchable" should be an explicit / implicit setting, this seems like something that could also largely be mitigated with some simple keyword flags. Words like "SSN" or "confidential" or the like are probably good indicators that this doc shouldn't have been shared and something that requires an extra approval dialog. That keyword list could also be something you'd expand over time and could use to retroactively remind users that they might have inadvertently shared something they shouldn't have.

nebabyte 10y ago
If your UX involves introspecting content to determine whether it is being misfiled, you're already doing something wrong. Such gimmicks work as 'syntactic sugar' (think google's "did you forget an attachment" message) but they shouldn't be the first the user sees of the feature (in goog's case, having an always-visible attachment icon.) If they absolutely want to go the idiotic route of public-by-default, a 'private'/'public switch might be too noisy; a 'create new document'/'create new private document' too redundant... Honestly, I don't see why they would want to go that route anyways. The model is practically handed to them on a silver platter; most users want to keep docs private, unless and until they wish to have a document pool for sharing (easy to build infrastructure for), explicitly share single docs (again, just add a 'share' button and people get it), or make it publically accessible (i.e. "post" or "publish" to a platform.) As I said in another comment here - everything gets explained away once you assume MS' incompetence in things. (I mean for god's sake, there are so many other solutions in this space that they have all the hard thinking be done for them!)
- contextfree 10y ago
  I think you're missing the context. Office Online/OneDrive/etc. already implement more or less the default behavior you recommend. docs.com is a separate service intended specifically for public sharing, i.e., it's a platform to which you post or publish. I would guess this is less of a technical or UI design problem and more of a branding/product concept/positioning problem, i.e., (some) people don't seem to understand the overall concept of the product, possibly because of the name

nebabyte 10y ago

If your UX involves introspecting content to determine whether it is being misfiled, you're already doing something wrong. Such gimmicks work as 'syntactic sugar' (think google's "did you forget an attachment" message) but they shouldn't be the first the user sees of the feature (in goog's case, having an always-visible attachment icon.) If they absolutely want to go the idiotic route of public-by-default, a 'private'/'public switch might be too noisy; a 'create new document'/'create new private document' too redundant... Honestly, I don't see why they would want to go that route anyways. The model is practically handed to them on a silver platter; most users want to keep docs private, unless and until they wish to have a document pool for sharing (easy to build infrastructure for), explicitly share single docs (again, just add a 'share' button and people get it), or make it publically accessible (i.e. "post" or "publish" to a platform.) As I said in another comment here - everything gets explained away once you assume MS' incompetence in things. (I mean for god's sake, there are so many other solutions in this space that they have all the hard thinking be done for them!)

contextfree 10y ago
I think you're missing the context. Office Online/OneDrive/etc. already implement more or less the default behavior you recommend. docs.com is a separate service intended specifically for public sharing, i.e., it's a platform to which you post or publish. I would guess this is less of a technical or UI design problem and more of a branding/product concept/positioning problem, i.e., (some) people don't seem to understand the overall concept of the product, possibly because of the name