3 ms·
If your UX involves introspecting content to determine whether it is being misfiled, you're already doing something wrong. Such gimmicks work as 'syntactic suga
by 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 agoI 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