On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Craig Andrews wrote:
What do we all think about the re-dent implementation in this merge
request? http://gitorious.org/laconica/mainline/merge_requests/1391
I've seen a lot of discussion... but I'm not aware of any consensus.
~Craig
So, from what I gathered in the discussions about this feature so
far, the major sticking points are:
* Use plain language; terminology like "redent" and "retweet" are
alienating jargon. Hence, the merge request uses the recycling symbol
to avoid service- or brand-specific iconography, and the term
"repeat" to avoid jargon and stick with plain English. (It seems
"reshare" as well as "forward" are other options for less jargon-y
terms to replace "redent". Personally, I like repeat best.)
* Do not automatically send a notice without giving the user a chance
to edit it first. The merge request uses the implementation of the
"reply" functionality as a blueprint for the repeat functionality, so
it doesn't send any notices implicitly.
There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus on how to distinguish
the repeated notice from other kinds of notices. A simplistic option
is to use in-reply-to (which is what this merge request does).
There also doesn't appear to be much consensus on how this should be
exposed graphically, so I took the route I saw Identi.ca *client*
apps using, which was the addition of a new button.
Admittedly, I think this is a pretty low-tech solution since it's
entirely client-side and user experience focused, but I actually
think that's the best way to start figuring out whether or not more
sophisticated functionality in the database or OMB protocol itself is
needed. That is to say, this button scratches my itch for the time
being and I want to see how other people react to it. :)
Cheers,
-Meitar Moscovitz
Personal: http://maymay.net
Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com
_______________________________________________
Laconica-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
