@bonfire @Supernova Yeah, I think that 'boundary' is a confusing name (in terms of UX, at least) as opposed to 'circle' 😆
@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
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)
@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).
@bonfire @Supernova Yeah, I think that 'boundary' is a confusing name (in terms of UX, at least) as opposed to 'circle' 😆
@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?
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?
@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.
i agree, atm we put everything on the table but making hard life for users to actually use boundaries (or whatever they'll be called) - thinking what could be the best way to improve the UX collectively, maybe a series of open design workshop in september?
@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.
+bonfire Getting too metaphorical is risky. Personally I never go camping, and have no idea what campgrounds are.
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.
This is a bonfire demo instance for testing purposes
Manual federation enabled