3 ms·

I don't think this is a great approach. The main issue I see is that you need to decide if your message is a "chat" or a "post" when you send it. I don't think

I don't think this is a great approach. The main issue I see is that you need to decide if your message is a "chat" or a "post" when you send it. I don't think you will get a group of people to use it consistently, and I think it is often impossible to judge what type of conversation your message will spawn ahead of time. I think the better approach is to base the UI on how people respond, rather than having the sender select from the two interfaces up-front.

thejarren 6y ago
The intent is that this would be largely automatic. Videos, photos, gifs, links, etc., could automatically include a “comment” function (in-place of the current reply function). If done manually (to a message, or group of messages) it could be within a menu (just like today’s long-tap to reply/react). Hope that clarifies things. I had a section showing how I thought that could be better implemented, but I decided to save that for Part 2.
- kevincox 6y ago
  I see, I missed that. In that case I have a follow up. Why do you think that "media" is more likely to start a subthread than a regular message? It seems to me like this is unlikely to be a particularly effective distinction? Or is the intent that media + manual is close enough to perfect?
  - thejarren 6y ago
    I am mostly assuming based off of my personal experience, Someone shares a link or photo, and everyone responds. User-testing would be fairly telling here, though the difference would mostly be "Should we show the comment button automatically or not?" A message could become a post just as easily as users currently use "reply", instead they could "comment". Honestly in situations that use a "reply icon" the icon could even remain the same. So yes, I think that media + manual is close enough to perfect.
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  This feels like trying to turn IM in to Facebook. No one wants their group to become a link dump where you drop a video or news article and then leave. If the content isn’t discussion worthy or on topic, don’t dump it. No one likes chats which are just logs of someone’s YouTube history

thejarren 6y ago

The intent is that this would be largely automatic. Videos, photos, gifs, links, etc., could automatically include a “comment” function (in-place of the current reply function). If done manually (to a message, or group of messages) it could be within a menu (just like today’s long-tap to reply/react). Hope that clarifies things. I had a section showing how I thought that could be better implemented, but I decided to save that for Part 2.

kevincox 6y ago
I see, I missed that. In that case I have a follow up. Why do you think that "media" is more likely to start a subthread than a regular message? It seems to me like this is unlikely to be a particularly effective distinction? Or is the intent that media + manual is close enough to perfect?
- thejarren 6y ago
  I am mostly assuming based off of my personal experience, Someone shares a link or photo, and everyone responds. User-testing would be fairly telling here, though the difference would mostly be "Should we show the comment button automatically or not?" A message could become a post just as easily as users currently use "reply", instead they could "comment". Honestly in situations that use a "reply icon" the icon could even remain the same. So yes, I think that media + manual is close enough to perfect.
PurpleFoxy 6y ago
This feels like trying to turn IM in to Facebook. No one wants their group to become a link dump where you drop a video or news article and then leave. If the content isn’t discussion worthy or on topic, don’t dump it. No one likes chats which are just logs of someone’s YouTube history