Direct Message system redesign

aylamz commented

2023-08-03 18:16:28 +02:00

Member

It's not really clear what the differences are and if/why you should use one over the other.

jeder added the

discussion

label 2023-08-03 21:04:37 +02:00

aylamz commented

2023-09-01 13:30:27 +02:00

Author

Member

After a quick test it seems that the difference is only in UX. So it's redundant functionality, one of these should be removed.

zotan commented

2023-09-02 18:57:58 +02:00

Owner

As far as I understand it the chat functionality is more of an IM-like interface, while 'send a message' opens a regular DM compose window

aylamz commented

2023-09-03 17:54:14 +02:00

Author

Member

As far as I understand it the chat functionality is more of an IM-like interface, while 'send a message' opens a regular DM compose window

That's what I mean yeah: the difference is purely UX. But it's unnecessary and confusing. https://box464.com/posts/firefish-groups/

For example, from that article:

Thanks to @testing@blahaj.zone for pointing out that Direct Chats (1-1) can be made across Firefish and Calckey instances. I assume Iceshrimp as well, tho I don’t have an account on an Iceshrimp instance. Interesting note, Misskey (at last from what I can see) doesn’t have Chat.

This is incorrect: you can also "start a new chat" with someone on Mastodon where it shows up as "Direct mention". (tested it with my alt on mastodon.online). And "sending a message" shows up like that too on Mastodon's side.

> As far as I understand it the chat functionality is more of an IM-like interface, while 'send a message' opens a regular DM compose window That's what I mean yeah: the difference is purely UX. But it's unnecessary and confusing. https://box464.com/posts/firefish-groups/ For example, from that article: > > Thanks to @testing@blahaj.zone for pointing out that Direct Chats (1-1) can be made across Firefish and Calckey instances. I assume Iceshrimp as well, tho I don’t have an account on an Iceshrimp instance. Interesting note, Misskey (at last from what I can see) doesn’t have Chat. This is incorrect: you can also "start a new chat" with someone on Mastodon where it shows up as "Direct mention". (tested it with my alt on mastodon.online). And "sending a message" shows up like that too on Mastodon's side.

AntoineD commented

2023-09-03 22:07:34 +02:00

Member

I've already heard quite a few people complain that DMs are visible in the timeline.

I find placing them in a separate interface much easier to read.

As it is, however, it seems unfinished :

When I create a DM via classic composition, it's not visible there.
If someone DMs me from something other than a *key server, it's not visible there.
When I create a DM via this interface, I have a long delay before seeing it, making me think that it didn't do anything.

If there was a way for it to be just a filter to display only "mention only" privacy messages in order to hide them in timelines, it might be more effective?

I've already heard quite a few people complain that DMs are visible in the timeline. I find placing them in a separate interface much easier to read. As it is, however, it seems unfinished : - When I create a DM via classic composition, it's not visible there. - If someone DMs me from something other than a *key server, it's not visible there. - When I create a DM via this interface, I have a long delay before seeing it, making me think that it didn't do anything. If there was a way for it to be just a filter to display only "mention only" privacy messages in order to hide them in timelines, it might be more effective?

aylamz referenced this issue

2023-09-29 11:14:24 +02:00

[Discussion] Tweak CSS #257

AntoineD commented

2023-10-09 09:45:08 +02:00

Member

Pleroma and Pixelfed have an instant messaging system.

It might be interesting to at least be able to receive these messages, so as not to lose any information.

Pleroma and Pixelfed have an instant messaging system. It might be interesting to at least be able to receive these messages, so as not to lose any information.

AntoineD closed this issue

2023-10-09 09:45:08 +02:00

AntoineD reopened this issue

2023-10-09 09:45:22 +02:00

jeder commented

2023-10-09 09:48:11 +02:00

Member

Those systems are completely incompatible with each other, and in my experience Pleroma chats weren't used that much since it isn't that well supported by anyone, let alone mobile apps.

AntoineD commented

2023-11-20 18:00:58 +01:00

Member

How about renaming this ticket to "Direct Message system redesign"?

The challenge is to create a much simpler and more efficient experience, while remaining compatible with applications using the Mastodon and Misskey APIs.

How about renaming this ticket to "Direct Message system redesign"? The challenge is to create a much simpler and more efficient experience, while remaining compatible with applications using the Mastodon and Misskey APIs.

AntoineD commented

2023-11-20 18:12:07 +01:00

Member

For greater consistency with Mastodon, we could rename this tab "Private mentions" with an envelope icon.

For greater consistency with Mastodon, we could rename this tab "Private mentions" with an envelope icon. ![image](/attachments/f8caf2db-a462-45e5-9202-0003f4defd44)

image.png

6.4 KiB

AntoineD added a new dependency 2023-11-30 21:09:33 +01:00

#425 "Send to chat" button on "Share" submenu

AntoineD added this to the (deleted) milestone 2023-12-03 00:46:36 +01:00

AntoineD added a new dependency 2023-12-03 01:12:44 +01:00

#287 [bug] delays for view new discussions

AverageDood commented

2023-12-06 00:49:35 +01:00

Member

Turns out this doesn't work as Mastodon-like as we thought.

On Mastodon, when you send a private post, you need to mention the user, and mentioning another user WILL drag them to the thread and they'll be allowed to see everything.

This is not quite the case here.

If mentioning someone from mastodon, on an Iceshrimp started private thread, they will only see those that have a mention, nothing else nothing more, neither prior that, or after that. Moreover, starting a private posts thread on Iceshrimp does not require mentions, but rather, those posts have a list of recipients, independent to the mentions of each post.

Finally, on a chat, either personal or grupal, all messages will ONLY be visible for chat members. Even if another account gets mentioned, that account will NOT be able to see said message.

Chat messages and private posts have one key difference distinguishing from each other, and a big difference distinguishing them from Mastodon's private mentions.

Turns out this doesn't work as Mastodon-like as we thought. On Mastodon, when you send a private post, you *need* to mention the user, and mentioning another user WILL drag them to the thread and they'll be allowed to see everything. This is not quite the case here. If mentioning someone from mastodon, on an Iceshrimp started private thread, they will only see those that have a mention, nothing else nothing more, neither prior that, or after that. Moreover, starting a private posts thread on Iceshrimp does not require mentions, but rather, those posts have a list of recipients, independent to the mentions of each post. Finally, on a chat, either personal or grupal, all messages will ONLY be visible for chat members. Even if another account gets mentioned, that account will NOT be able to see said message. Chat messages and private posts have one key difference distinguishing from each other, and a big difference distinguishing them from Mastodon's private mentions.

AntoineD commented

2023-12-06 01:00:09 +01:00

Member

@AverageDood
I agree with your assessment of the current situation.

What's your opinion on unifying all this to avoid confusion?

And more importantly, in what way?

@AverageDood I agree with your assessment of the current situation. What's your opinion on unifying all this to avoid confusion? And more importantly, in what way?

AverageDood commented

2023-12-06 02:11:45 +01:00

Member

@AntoineD my idea is almost equal to yours actually.

First, we rework a bit the private mentions so they behave exactly like Mastodon (mention mandatory, to mention a new user would grant that user access to the whole thread), and adapt the localizations to make sure they can be told apart from actual chat, by removing or replacing everything that may hint to that being a "closed chat with the mentioned users", as it is truly not such a thing, but rather just a post with restricted visibility.
By doing this, we ensure absolute compatibility with Mastodon's approach for the "private mention".

Then, we can filter those "private mention" posts by visibility type, and hide them from the home timeline, shoving them instead on a third, new tab of the "Chats" page, with a warning on said tab letting the users know that those messages aren't truly closed with the recipient and mentioning new users will add them to the full conversation. This could be done at the top of the tab's page, on the style of a timeline description or a "remote user" heads up.

Since the software clearly can distinguish between them at the UI, and show proper icons for each visibility type, a way to filter those with that specific visibility should be possible. After all, the discrimination already exists.

At least, so far, this is the only idea that comes to mind. I'd like to hear comments and opinions on this, because it was pretty much redacted as the top of my head

@AntoineD my idea is almost equal to yours actually. First, we rework a bit the private mentions so they behave exactly like Mastodon (mention mandatory, to mention a new user would grant that user access to the whole thread), and adapt the localizations to make sure they can be told apart from actual chat, by removing or replacing everything that may hint to that being a "closed chat with the mentioned users", as it is truly not such a thing, but rather just a post with restricted visibility. By doing this, we ensure absolute compatibility with Mastodon's approach for the "private mention". Then, we can filter those "private mention" posts by visibility type, and hide them from the home timeline, shoving them instead on a third, new tab of the "Chats" page, with a warning on said tab letting the users know that those messages aren't truly closed with the recipient and mentioning new users will add them to the full conversation. This could be done at the top of the tab's page, on the style of a timeline description or a "remote user" heads up. Since the software clearly can distinguish between them at the UI, and show proper icons for each visibility type, a way to filter those with that specific visibility should be possible. After all, the discrimination already exists. At least, so far, this is the only idea that comes to mind. I'd like to hear comments and opinions on this, because it was pretty much redacted as the top of my head

👍 2

zotan pinned this 2023-12-06 13:48:02 +01:00

AntoineD changed title from ~~"Start a new chat" vs "Send a message" is confusing~~ to Direct Message system redesign

2023-12-06 13:50:02 +01:00

AntoineD referenced this issue

2023-12-06 17:57:44 +01:00

List of changes from the current version for the frontend rewrite #435

AntoineD added this to the Frontend rewriting project 2023-12-06 19:20:14 +01:00

AntoineD added a new dependency 2023-12-18 23:36:38 +01:00

#454 preference to block "direct messages" from users you don't follow

Direct Message system redesign #86