Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FTUE: Canonical DMs #10765

Closed
5 tasks
nadonomy opened this issue Sep 5, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed
5 tasks

FTUE: Canonical DMs #10765

nadonomy opened this issue Sep 5, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@nadonomy
Copy link
Contributor

nadonomy commented Sep 5, 2019

Screenshot 2019-09-05 at 15 42 15

https://zpl.io/ad141pp

Update behaviour of member button (top right):

  • In a 1:1 DM should simply reveal the user profile
  • In a group DM, should reveal the member list
@nadonomy nadonomy added the Z-FTUE label Sep 5, 2019
@jryans jryans changed the title FTUE: Canonical DM's FTUE: Canonical DMs Sep 6, 2019
@r4dh4l
Copy link

r4dh4l commented Oct 11, 2019

Hi,

I hope this is the right issue https://matrix.org/blog/2019/10/10/new-vector-raises-8-5-m-to-accelerate-matrix-riot-modular is referring to saying

Canonical DMs (having one DM per user, and have them feel clearly distinct from ‘rooms’)

Actually I was a little bit afraid reading this because the "everything is a room" concept of [matrix] is a fantastic feature. The problem is just that newcomers coming from WhatsApp etc. which used to think in "Direct chat" and "Group chat" are not introduced into this concept at all.

So may I suggest the following:

  • Instead of thinking in usual messenger concepts just slightly redesign what happens when users press/click the + button:
  1. It should open "create a new [matrix] room" in all cases (because this is what technically happens, don't hide this from users).
  2. Explain what happens in a short note like:

All conversations in the [matrix] network take place in rooms. Like in real life a room can be empty, can contain just you or a fluctuating amount of people. There are no fixed "multi user chat" or "direct chats" (a direct chat can become a multi user chat and a multi user chat can become a direct chat, even just for you an your personal notes).

  1. Use the wizard steps which are currently appear for "Start a chat", so just ask for "Who would youb like to communicate with?" because this can be just me, another user and me or a group of users and me. Finished.
  2. All other settings the wizard "Create a private room" is asking for can be done later via rooms settings while
  • "Make this room public" default is "no"
  • "Block users on other matrix homeservers from joining this room (This setting cannot be changed later!)" default is "no" and only visible if the initially invited users are from the same home server

Overall: Don't hide a matrix core feature from the users but explain it well! Users are willing to learn if the explanation is done well.

  • merge the categories "people" and "rooms" to "normal priority" (because this is canonical to "favorites" and "low priority") and completely hide what is not used
  • let people define their own contact categories instead

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

@r4dh4l as mentioned on the proposal, nothing is changing about the backend of the room: it's still a room. Much of your proposal is already in the design screenshot (wizard-like setup, most options not included, easier to use than before). Explaining that DMs are just rooms is hard to do, particularly when the average user doesn't care and just wants to get talking - they'll realize it's just a room when the chrome around the app is still there like it is for any other room.

@bwindels
Copy link
Contributor

@turt2live are these requirements from this issue included in any of the other tickets?

Make DMs canonical (matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals#2199)
Don’t send message invite until sending first message
In a 1:1 DM should simply reveal the user profile
In a group DM, should reveal the member list

There is some overlap with the "Improve User Lists" FTUE project, but that one doesn't include the above AFAIK.

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

@bwindels it looks like they weren't - have filed #11495 to track the missing pieces (rather than fix this issue for the requirements)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants