Post by @dajbelshaw@playground.bonfire.cafe

@mayel @ivan Love the circles/boundaries stuff! 🤘

Might be my lack of understanding, but I'm assuming that by defining a 'circle' I'm adding a group of people to a list.

This is different to creating a 'boundary' where I'm defining permissions of the people in that list in relation to my posts.

Is that right? At the moment, I feel like the circle/boundary language could be clearer?

9 Replies

11 Boosts

ivan

@ivan 4 years ago

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @Thursday @Dragan_Espenschied

here an attempt of an improved UI for boundaries, the main outcomes are:

Reduce the permissions list toshow only the relevant ones for each activity type (eg. see / read / like / boost / mention / reply / edit (future one) / delete (future one) ...)
Default the permissions to be the same for all the users/circles involved
Let the user expand each verb to customise the permissions for the users involved (fig.3)
replace the 3 icons that shows the permission states (can / undefined / cannot) with a more standard 3-toggle state

3 media

permission customised for different users

a simpler boundary screen to go through permissions

ivan

@ivan 4 years ago

ah the img previews are displaied in the wrong order, the fig.3 is displaied as the first one (the flow should be from the last image to the first)

Supernova

@Supernova 4 years ago

@dajbelshaw @bonfire I am also somewhat confused. I can add multiple people and circles to a boundary? I am not sure if I am supposed to use boundaries at sets of circles and people (a boundary for all I might want to share photos with) or if boundaries are more to specify groups that have certain permissions or abilities (can view not boost my posts).

Doug Belshaw

@dajbelshaw 4 years ago

@bonfire @Supernova Yeah, I think that 'boundary' is a confusing name (in terms of UX, at least) as opposed to 'circle' 😆

ivan

@ivan 4 years ago

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova interesting, tough creating a circle and assing permissions to them are 2 separated actions (and happens in different times and page)

Your suggestion is to merge them together?

Supernova

@Supernova 4 years ago

I don't know if they can be merged, it depends on the intended use of boundaries.

Are boundaries only suppose to link to one circle?

SO can I create one boundary that allows all permissions to say circle named "Family"? Can I then create another boundary that is linked again to the same circle "Family", but then give it more restrictive permissions like the post can't be shared? Then if I want to share a post with "Family" I then have the option of allowing or not allowing them to share the post depending on the boundary I choose to use?

Dragan Espenschied

@Dragan_Espenschied 4 years ago

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @Thursday @ivan I would indeed merge them together. Otherwise you can easily end up with an AWS IAM system oder endless mix-and-match options like the NTFS file system exposes.

1 more reply

Thursday

@Thursday 4 years ago

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @ivan how about using terminology of a campfire? Something like campgrounds for boundary? Users may be more familiar with the naming more than abstract nature of the word boundaries.

Circle I think makes sense. But due to social network nomenclature, maybe group or camp members would work better? If you want individuals to understand what they are using, similar verbs may be necessary for similar concepts. Otherwise, it can produce confusion regardless of the intention for simplicity or clarity.

1 more reply

Doug Belshaw

@dajbelshaw 4 years ago

@bonfire @Supernova @ivan For me, it's just the term 'boundary' ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯