6 ms·

What about Element / Matrix ? It's ahead of Signal in usability, and much more future-proof.

Triv888 6y ago
I wish that they would have chosen a different name when switching from Riot to Element because I am just starting to getting used to it. But it is still my #1 option.
- Evidlo 6y ago
  It's not really any less generic than Signal, though. Neither are great names.
  - zanny 6y ago
    Signal and Telegram at least have something to do with communication, Element probably makes most people think about rocks.
johnchristopher 6y ago
> What about Element / Matrix ? It's ahead of Signal in usability, and much more future-proof. If only it could be present-ready. No, I am kidding :). The way I see it Matrix and Signal have different short term and long term goals, some overlapping. And both could do way better in term of usability.
kevincox 6y ago
> It's ahead of Signal in usability I like and use Element but it definitely isn't ahead in usability. Getting e2e set up for "average" people isn't trivial. Especially if they have multiple devices. That being said it is the the best long term option in my opinion and I am donating to the organization. Hopefully they can work on polishing the e2e UX.
- zepearl 6y ago
  > Getting e2e set up Do you mean about accessing an encrypted chat from multiple devices? If yes, I was playing with that just this weekend and I did not understand at all how to trust the other devices by using "text" (which "text"? I didn't get anything to type/check/approve anywhere); on the other hand by using the option to use emoji (compare a series of emoji between devices and then confirm) was very simple. As well finding the link to a group-chat that I just created was not simple (or at least the place where to find it was not obvious). > That being said it is the the best long term option in my opinion and I am donating to the organization. Hopefully they can work on polishing the e2e UX. Same here & I agree.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    For me the verify by text worked, but you can click on a lot of very similar places and you get different results. For example if you click verify it forces interactive verification. If you click the sessions and then click a session you can verify individual sessions. Of course you can't non-interactively verify a users main key. I'm also confused why each device is handled separately. I would rather I just share a key around (and ideally it rotates occasionally) and not share what and how many devices I have and what one I am using at the moment.
    - zepearl 6y ago
      > but you can click on a lot of very similar places and you get different results. Aha, didn't notice that, thx! > I'm also confused why each device is handled separately. Well, I can understand it more or less (I guess kind of similar to confirming in Whatsapp your multiple open sessions on different devices, to ensure that nobody is using something that you forgot/left behind?), but doing it this way is quite hardcore - on the other hand it could be that the whole thing is deeply embedded in the software's encryption principles/guidelines => it would probably still be ok, but it needs to be explained better, be more clearly accessible. I guess that having a rotating key (with the software asking from time to time "do you want to accept key jf8k4d9k?") would probably be confusing for non-technical users and would probably generate uncertainty/anxiety/etc... ?
zamadatix 6y ago
Matrix feels akin to trying to tell my (non technical) friends that they should use HTTPS as their social media site. I think it's technically more capable but trying to explain what you can do, how to get started, or why it's better is a much higher bar than something like Signal.
- zepearl 6y ago
  Absolutely correct, I just did that this weekend: big effort trying to explain all pros vs cons and the its technical background and future outlook, prepared test chatroom, wrote simple instructions to create account and try it out => got ignored, failed miserably, hehe :)
fractionalhare 6y ago
Why is it more future-proof?
- Evidlo 6y ago
  I'm guessing the federated aspect. You can jump ship to another server and not break your social graph. Also you can use alternative clients, which (I think) is against Signal's TOS, and is at least discouraged.
akvadrako 6y ago
I think Element is way behind Signal in terms of usability. The iOS app is the most confusing chat app I've seen, especially if you are using your own servers.
eclipseo76 6y ago
I use Signal and Matrix with different usecases, Matrix being more a replacement for IRC and Signal for communicating with friends.
rvz 6y ago
Exactly. Very bad name, too techy for the average folk and it doesn't have the same network effect as Signal or Telegram. I disagree that it is ahead of Signal for usability in fact it is still behind. Although I do praise it for not requiring and collecting my phone number and being a bit more future-proof and decentralised, unlike Signal and Telegram. But in terms of getting my friends grandmother over it, it completely loses on usability and its name is so confusing to them you just had to also mention the Matrix protocol, when it is just Element. which even that by itself is very ambiguous.

I wish that they would have chosen a different name when switching from Riot to Element because I am just starting to getting used to it. But it is still my #1 option.

Evidlo 6y ago
It's not really any less generic than Signal, though. Neither are great names.
- zanny 6y ago
  Signal and Telegram at least have something to do with communication, Element probably makes most people think about rocks.

johnchristopher 6y ago

> What about Element / Matrix ? It's ahead of Signal in usability, and much more future-proof. If only it could be present-ready. No, I am kidding :). The way I see it Matrix and Signal have different short term and long term goals, some overlapping. And both could do way better in term of usability.

kevincox 6y ago

> It's ahead of Signal in usability I like and use Element but it definitely isn't ahead in usability. Getting e2e set up for "average" people isn't trivial. Especially if they have multiple devices. That being said it is the the best long term option in my opinion and I am donating to the organization. Hopefully they can work on polishing the e2e UX.

zepearl 6y ago
> Getting e2e set up Do you mean about accessing an encrypted chat from multiple devices? If yes, I was playing with that just this weekend and I did not understand at all how to trust the other devices by using "text" (which "text"? I didn't get anything to type/check/approve anywhere); on the other hand by using the option to use emoji (compare a series of emoji between devices and then confirm) was very simple. As well finding the link to a group-chat that I just created was not simple (or at least the place where to find it was not obvious). > That being said it is the the best long term option in my opinion and I am donating to the organization. Hopefully they can work on polishing the e2e UX. Same here & I agree.
- kevincox 6y ago
  For me the verify by text worked, but you can click on a lot of very similar places and you get different results. For example if you click verify it forces interactive verification. If you click the sessions and then click a session you can verify individual sessions. Of course you can't non-interactively verify a users main key. I'm also confused why each device is handled separately. I would rather I just share a key around (and ideally it rotates occasionally) and not share what and how many devices I have and what one I am using at the moment.
  - zepearl 6y ago
    > but you can click on a lot of very similar places and you get different results. Aha, didn't notice that, thx! > I'm also confused why each device is handled separately. Well, I can understand it more or less (I guess kind of similar to confirming in Whatsapp your multiple open sessions on different devices, to ensure that nobody is using something that you forgot/left behind?), but doing it this way is quite hardcore - on the other hand it could be that the whole thing is deeply embedded in the software's encryption principles/guidelines => it would probably still be ok, but it needs to be explained better, be more clearly accessible. I guess that having a rotating key (with the software asking from time to time "do you want to accept key jf8k4d9k?") would probably be confusing for non-technical users and would probably generate uncertainty/anxiety/etc... ?

zamadatix 6y ago

Matrix feels akin to trying to tell my (non technical) friends that they should use HTTPS as their social media site. I think it's technically more capable but trying to explain what you can do, how to get started, or why it's better is a much higher bar than something like Signal.

zepearl 6y ago
Absolutely correct, I just did that this weekend: big effort trying to explain all pros vs cons and the its technical background and future outlook, prepared test chatroom, wrote simple instructions to create account and try it out => got ignored, failed miserably, hehe :)

fractionalhare 6y ago

Why is it more future-proof?

Evidlo 6y ago
I'm guessing the federated aspect. You can jump ship to another server and not break your social graph. Also you can use alternative clients, which (I think) is against Signal's TOS, and is at least discouraged.

akvadrako 6y ago

I think Element is way behind Signal in terms of usability. The iOS app is the most confusing chat app I've seen, especially if you are using your own servers.

eclipseo76 6y ago

I use Signal and Matrix with different usecases, Matrix being more a replacement for IRC and Signal for communicating with friends.

rvz 6y ago

Exactly. Very bad name, too techy for the average folk and it doesn't have the same network effect as Signal or Telegram. I disagree that it is ahead of Signal for usability in fact it is still behind. Although I do praise it for not requiring and collecting my phone number and being a bit more future-proof and decentralised, unlike Signal and Telegram. But in terms of getting my friends grandmother over it, it completely loses on usability and its name is so confusing to them you just had to also mention the Matrix protocol, when it is just Element. which even that by itself is very ambiguous.