"Look, I appreciate the thought, but really: you *don't* understand the context yet."
Perhaps, but I have used many conversation systems, starting back in 1981, and I know what I hate.
"The identifier in question isn't the user, it's the *conversation*."
Yes, I *understand* that. That is why I talk about 'subject'. On a side note, you also need 'speaker', but I assume you have that in some way. But really, it is 'subject' that I care about, not some number. If someone comes up to me in person, and says 'remember what we were talking about, I just had another idea.' I might ask for a reference. 'oh the conversation we were having in the grocery store' or 'the one back on Tuesday' are useful responses. 'The one on public transportation' is the best answer, and 'conversation #4' is completely useless.
"And insisting that users choose a unique identifier for every conversation is a clear non-starter."
No doubt, but that wasn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that you _allow_ the user to _choose_ a unique identifier. After all, they are the one with the best understanding of what will jog their brain into the proper context.
"How does the user say which conversation he wants to drop out of, or follow more closely? How does he refer to specific messages within it?"
I would want to click on it (that is one of the conversation pieces) and get a menu of such options.
How *does* he refer to specific messages in it? 45th message of conversation #5, isn't going to happen, of course. Clicking on a message long ago scrolled off is a huge pain. I would tend to think users would solve this as they do in verbal conversations i.e. 'going back to your point about doves, I think...' Have you got a better solution? That would be cool.
"I wouldn't be bothering with it if it wasn't going to be *used* extensively."
And I am saying I don't want to use it. WoW uses channel numbers and they are a PITA. Actually they use both numbers and subjects, subjects are much easier to remember (though even that implementation sucks). It should be noted though, that all messages have both the number and subject (and speaker) at the front.
(Side thought: How long are conversation numbers maintained? This is one area that WoW really falls down. If you leave a channel the number gets reassigned, so a channel you are often in, isn't consistently the same number. I would probably want a sweetie conversation, that I could access easily at any time (even between sessions) which never changed. Other conversations would come and go of course, but while numbers would need to be recycled, subjects could be kept longer (again, between sessions even).)
"Nor is the scrolling necessary, BTW -- simply type "6", and it instantly spits the conversation info for #6 back at you. This is an interactive system.)"
Which conversation information? Participants yes. Last comment? Last comment by the same speaker? Subject?
How is this better than clicking on a message and getting the same thing?
I think perhaps you are getting a little too close to the implementation. If you want me as a customer, I will want something better than numbered conversations. You are arguing like I do when I have already coded it, and love my code, but the customer wants something completely different (or even something just better, that they can't articulate). Take a step back, reread my posts, think like Steve Jobs.
Here is an idea which I might find acceptable. Subject can be entered by the user at any time. Subject can be selected from a word in any comment. Subject will be chosen by the system from frequently used, uncommon words in the first message. Subject is shrunk (somehow) and used for all messages. Better ideas no doubt exist.
Here is an idea if you still don't believe me. Go into your email program and reduce the size of the subject field to 1 character (turn off threading if you have it). Useless, yes? Now go in and manually change the subject of a bunch of messages by inserting a number in front (one for each different subject), so that is what you see instead. Did that help? It wouldn't help me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-25 01:26 pm (UTC)Perhaps, but I have used many conversation systems, starting back in 1981, and I know what I hate.
"The identifier in question isn't the user, it's the *conversation*."
Yes, I *understand* that. That is why I talk about 'subject'. On a side note, you also need 'speaker', but I assume you have that in some way. But really, it is 'subject' that I care about, not some number. If someone comes up to me in person, and says 'remember what we were talking about, I just had another idea.' I might ask for a reference. 'oh the conversation we were having in the grocery store' or 'the one back on Tuesday' are useful responses. 'The one on public transportation' is the best answer, and 'conversation #4' is completely useless.
"And insisting that users choose a unique identifier for every conversation is a clear non-starter."
No doubt, but that wasn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that you _allow_ the user to _choose_ a unique identifier. After all, they are the one with the best understanding of what will jog their brain into the proper context.
"How does the user say which conversation he wants to drop out of, or follow more closely? How does he refer to specific messages within it?"
I would want to click on it (that is one of the conversation pieces) and get a menu of such options.
How *does* he refer to specific messages in it? 45th message of conversation #5, isn't going to happen, of course. Clicking on a message long ago scrolled off is a huge pain. I would tend to think users would solve this as they do in verbal conversations i.e. 'going back to your point about doves, I think...' Have you got a better solution? That would be cool.
"I wouldn't be bothering with it if it wasn't going to be *used* extensively."
And I am saying I don't want to use it. WoW uses channel numbers and they are a PITA. Actually they use both numbers and subjects, subjects are much easier to remember (though even that implementation sucks). It should be noted though, that all messages have both the number and subject (and speaker) at the front.
(Side thought: How long are conversation numbers maintained? This is one area that WoW really falls down. If you leave a channel the number gets reassigned, so a channel you are often in, isn't consistently the same number. I would probably want a sweetie conversation, that I could access easily at any time (even between sessions) which never changed. Other conversations would come and go of course, but while numbers would need to be recycled, subjects could be kept longer (again, between sessions even).)
"Nor is the scrolling necessary, BTW -- simply type "6", and it instantly spits the conversation info for #6 back at you. This is an interactive system.)"
Which conversation information? Participants yes. Last comment? Last comment by the same speaker? Subject?
How is this better than clicking on a message and getting the same thing?
I think perhaps you are getting a little too close to the implementation. If you want me as a customer, I will want something better than numbered conversations. You are arguing like I do when I have already coded it, and love my code, but the customer wants something completely different (or even something just better, that they can't articulate). Take a step back, reread my posts, think like Steve Jobs.
Here is an idea which I might find acceptable. Subject can be entered by the user at any time. Subject can be selected from a word in any comment. Subject will be chosen by the system from frequently used, uncommon words in the first message. Subject is shrunk (somehow) and used for all messages. Better ideas no doubt exist.
Here is an idea if you still don't believe me. Go into your email program and reduce the size of the subject field to 1 character (turn off threading if you have it). Useless, yes? Now go in and manually change the subject of a bunch of messages by inserting a number in front (one for each different subject), so that is what you see instead. Did that help? It wouldn't help me.
Thank You Kindly.