On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:02:59 +0200, Unknown W. Brackets
<usefirstnameinstead-newsgr...@unknownbrackets.org> wrote:
I've definitely used threaded conversation in the past. In fact, I used
to think it was much better than linear, quite so. But, then I used
linear for quite some time and realized something simple: threaded is
just a pain, and only barely better.
I'd rather have 90+% the utility with less than 50% the pain. Far more
productive IMHO. And to be clear, I don't really like forums in general
(despite developing them) threaded or not, neither newsgroups. But they
serve a purpose.
What I'm concerned about, is that based on your recommendation of
vBulletin's threaded UI, you may have simply experienced poor UI?
For example, vBulletin only dedicates a measly amount of screen space to
the thread view. Newsreaders typically give it half of the application
area, with the ability to resize it to preference.
Another important element is keyboard navigation. While scrolling and the
occasional "next page" click is all that suffices in linear views, good
newsreaders should have simple and accessible keyboard shortcuts. For
example, in Opera pressing Space will scroll down the current message, or
- if there's nothing more to scroll - jump to the next unread message.
Well, if I'm talking in a meeting at work, the conversation follows a
path. If people bring up old information, that happens in a linear
fashion, not a branching one. I don't think I've ever communicated in
any non-linear way. Even when writing letters, I do so very linearly.
I find imposing branching to be an artificial supplement to a natural
conversation. That's not to imply linear forum conversations in text
are not at all artificial (intonations, etc. are a great example) - just
that they are less so.
I've also participated in debate, public speaking, general meetings, and
interviewing. All of these are highly linear, or at least I think so.
The analogy to speech only holds for as long as you assume that only one
person is speaking at the same time. Threads often diverge in multiple
unrelated conversations, often with a smaller subset of participants -
something like a rowdy classroom. In linear views, the noise becomes
annoying; moderators commonly have the responsibility to separate
conversations that have diverged too much.
What cost? Perhaps this is all about suboptimal UIs?
Productivity cost. The cost of dealing with it (even if it's small),
replying in the right places, looking back in the right places for
things you remember, etc. Call it laziness if you will, I guess.
Hmm... As opposed to ignoring sub-threads you're not interested about?
Well, as I mentioned earlier, this is not something that can be
objectively argued about. However, we should take into account that
conversations carried out on the same software and protocols can take a
wide variety of formats - going from a linear e-mail dialogue between only
two participants, to a busy newsgroup with a post coming in every few
minutes and threads exploding within hours. A linear view is certainly
more appropriate for the majority of e-mail users.
I just tried the threaded mode. Compared to a real newsreader, it is
also a joke.
Well, I haven't used it in a while, but I don't recall it being terribly
different from Thunderbird, which is what I use for this newsgroup, in
interface or features (and it was probably more stable, although
Thunderbird hasn't been crashing as much these days.)
It suffers from the same problems as other forums (does not remember
individual read posts), but also has a rather clumsy UI.
That's not at all true. Try this, then:
Right, I knew that - failed to properly express myself:
It does not. Major forum software, including SMF (I just checked the
source), store the last post ID that you've seen in a thread.
I also can tell you from experience that if they were presented as such,
people would be confused and complain. Actually, I do agree lots is
wrong about forum software (and also about newsgroups too), but so much
is "set in stone" by how people are used to using it. This isn't a new
problem.
You're contradicting yourself again... earlier you said:
not because they're stupid or "the masses" or they don't get it
But I agree that Joe Average doesn't need threading. Still, choice is
good, as the presence of choice opens the doors for others to discover
subjectively-superior ways of communication. :)
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
