A real Forum for D

[Vladimir Panteleev]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:02:59 +0200, Unknown W. Brackets  
<usefirstnameinstead-newsgroup at 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:vladimir at thecybershadow.net