On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:01:28 -0300, Julieta Shem wrote:
>
>> So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces. Somehow,
>> the subject line should come as a last step. That might be one of the
>> reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for conversations
>> --- they don't ask them to solve hard problems. On the contrary: they
>> force them not to solve them. (You don't have much to say? No problem:
>> we won't let you write more than n characters anyway.)
>
> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
> open.")
>
>

Even Google Drive is doing that now. (Though, to be fair, storage space
is expensive)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 03/12/2023 16:01, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> One difficulty there is that a good subject requires a summary of the
>> content, a hard problem that schools have been failing to solve.
>> Notice, too, that lay people write the subject first and the message,
>> second, which is roughly the same as writing out the number first and
>> doing the arithmetic later.
>>
>> So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces. Somehow,
>> the subject line should come as a last step. That might be one of
>> the reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for
>> conversations --- they don't ask them to solve hard problems. On the
>> contrary: they force them not to solve them. (You don't have much to
>> say? No problem: we won't let you write more than n characters
>> anyway.)
>
> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
> the title (summary) first.

Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?

> It's quite valid to say you should write it later - but that would
> result in a different layout for reading and writing, which would be
> confusing.

Why? It seems more confusing to have to write it first --- ``omg, I
need a subject, what do I put in there?'' If I can't decide, that's the
very definition of confusion.

> For me having the title first works most of the time. It's a one line
> summary of what I want to talk about. I then expand on it in the
> body. Occasionally I go back and change the title - but not often.

So true. More often than not now, I write it last. I've probably
rewritten it so many times now that I perhaps learned that it's less
work to write it last.

On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
> open.")

You are not the customer. You are the product. Forcing people to post
to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2023-12-04 20:46, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>
>> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
>> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
>> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
>> open.")
>
> You are not the customer. You are the product. Forcing people to post
> to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
> --scott

And that's the truth.

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:

> On 2023-12-04 20:46, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>
>>> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
>>> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
>>> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
>>> open.")
>> You are not the customer. You are the product. Forcing people to
>> post
>> to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
>> --scott
>
> And that's the truth.

Oh, I'm sorry for messing up your quote. That was ThunderBird's fault
or my fault for not setting it up properly. (I have been trying it
out.)

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>
>> On 2023-12-04 20:46, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
>>>> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
>>>> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
>>>> open.")
>>> You are not the customer. You are the product. Forcing people to
>>> post
>>> to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
>>> --scott
>>
>> And that's the truth.
>
>Oh, I'm sorry for messing up your quote. That was ThunderBird's fault
>or my fault for not setting it up properly. (I have been trying it
>out.)

A properly written signature block will automatically be discarded
on replies by most well-written NNTP clients.

On 12/3/23 15:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
> the title (summary) first.

That's a UI -> UX problem.

On 12/4/23 17:34, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?

Yes.

The UI can be changed so that the UX is improved.

Thunderbird will prompt if the subject is blank and ask if you want to
change it before sending.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 12/3/23 15:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
>> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
>> the title (summary) first.
>
> That's a UI -> UX problem.
>
> On 12/4/23 17:34, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?
>
> Yes.
>
> The UI can be changed so that the UX is improved.

Let's dig further. How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
written?

The most obvious approach, I think, is to put the field at the bottom of
the message. We can expect users writing their message and forgetting
about the subject, but then the send button after pressed would focus
the subject field. That'll annoy users.

Many people couldn't care less, of course. Many people must think that
subjects are a totally useless thing. For these people, perhaps the
client could write something else that would be minimally useful for us.
I don't what would be minimally useful.

> Thunderbird will prompt if the subject is blank and ask if you want to
> change it before sending.

In this case T'Bird misses the heart of the problem we're discussing
here. We're not discussing how to remember to write a subject, but to
only write it after the whole post is written, when it's much easier to
describe it in a few words. (Of course, it's nice to be remembered
about an empty subject.)

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/3/23 15:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
>>> the title (summary) first.
>>
>> That's a UI -> UX problem.
>>
>> On 12/4/23 17:34, Julieta Shem wrote:
>>> Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The UI can be changed so that the UX is improved.
>
>Let's dig further. How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
>so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
>written?

xrn does it perfectly. Opens a new composition window with the
headers filled in and the cursor positioned after the ':' in
the Subject: header.

On 12/5/23 15:22, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Let's dig further. How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
> so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
> written?

I'm sure there are ways.

I would not choose to use such a client.

> The most obvious approach, I think, is to put the field at the bottom of
> the message.

I suspect that's going to cause other problems in and of itself. But
you do you.

I'd be more inclined to have the subject field at both the top and
bottom if the top wasn't sufficient for some reason.

> We can expect users ...
Nope. No we can't.

> Many people couldn't care less, of course. Many people must think that
> subjects are a totally useless thing.

Then there are the opposite that write the entire message in the subject
and nothing in the body.

> For these people, perhaps the
> client could write something else that would be minimally useful for us.
> I don't what would be minimally useful.

Or we could gently use societal push back and ask people to put a
subject in place.

> In this case T'Bird misses the heart of the problem we're discussing
> here. We're not discussing how to remember to write a subject, but to
> only write it after the whole post is written, when it's much easier to
> describe it in a few words. (Of course, it's nice to be remembered
> about an empty subject.)

If the subject is blank and you hit send, Thunderbird asks you for a
subject. -- That sure seem to me like the subject being written after
the rest of the message.

--
Grant. . . .

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.misc.]
On 2023-12-05, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/3/23 15:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
>>> the title (summary) first.
>>
>> That's a UI -> UX problem.
>>
>> On 12/4/23 17:34, Julieta Shem wrote:
>>> Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The UI can be changed so that the UX is improved.
>
> Let's dig further. How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
> so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
> written?

Perhaps the "poor UX" is simply a product of a person not composing
their thoughts enough beforehand when posting something "new"?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do try to at least compose my
thoughts a little bit before writing up a "new topic" for discussion.

> [...]
> Many people couldn't care less, of course. Many people must think that
> subjects are a totally useless thing.

They're probably the type who also top-post :P

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 12/5/23 15:36, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> xrn does it perfectly. Opens a new composition window with the
> headers filled in and the cursor positioned after the ':' in
> the Subject: header.

Thunderbird does the same.

The pop-up I'm describing only happens if you send without having filled
in the subject.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 12/5/23 15:22, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> Let's dig further. How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
>> so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
>> written?
>
> I'm sure there are ways.
>
> I would not choose to use such a client.

Lol.

>> The most obvious approach, I think, is to put the field at the bottom of
>> the message.
>
> I suspect that's going to cause other problems in and of itself. But
> you do you.

I suspect the same.

> I'd be more inclined to have the subject field at both the top and
> bottom if the top wasn't sufficient for some reason.

That's another idea.

>> We can expect users ...
> Nope. No we can't.

We can always expect --- for as long as we live. :-)

>> Many people couldn't care less, of course. Many people must think that
>> subjects are a totally useless thing.
>
> Then there are the opposite that write the entire message in the
> subject and nothing in the body.

Lol! These users think so highly of subjects that they actually think
it should be written seriously and in high-precision. Lol. I've seen
e-mails like that --- they're great.

>> For these people, perhaps the
>> client could write something else that would be minimally useful for us.
>> I don't what would be minimally useful.
>
> Or we could gently use societal push back and ask people to put a
> subject in place.

But we are a minority. It's them pushing us back.

>> In this case T'Bird misses the heart of the problem we're discussing
>> here. We're not discussing how to remember to write a subject, but to
>> only write it after the whole post is written, when it's much easier to
>> describe it in a few words. (Of course, it's nice to be remembered
>> about an empty subject.)
>
> If the subject is blank and you hit send, Thunderbird asks you for a
> subject. -- That sure seem to me like the subject being written
> after the rest of the message.

That is the subject being written after the rest of the message, but it
won't do anything for those people who write the subject first and then
compose the message afterwards.

By the way, I only noticed now that this is going to comp.lang.c. I've
set the follow-up-to header to comp.misc.

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
[...]
> Let's dig further. How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
> so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
> written?

Perhaps news.software.readers would be a better place for this
discussion.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.misc.]
2023-12-05, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> schrieb:

[Schnipp]

> Let's dig further.

Please don't, at least not in comp.lang.c.

--
Jan v/d Broek
balglaas@dds.nl