Discussion
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?
here an attempt of an improved UI for boundaries, the main outcomes are:
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)
Your suggestion is to merge them together?
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.
I agree boundaries is not an ideal term, but not because it is abstract, it just doen't fit 100%. Bounded posts are not changing their shape, or growing or shrinking in size. They have certain rules about who can see and interact with them. It is like every post can be its own little forum. My suggestion would be rules or access.
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?
Install Bonfire Playground
Get the full app experience
