Status Messages Vs Personal Messages
zeegeek at gmail.com
Thu Sep 11 18:45:15 EDT 2008
2008/9/11 Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com>
> On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 14:39 -0700, Mark Doliner wrote:
> > And no, you don't need to
> > click the status control to change, you just need to click in the text
> > box then start typing.
> Felipe considers it non-intuitive to have to click a status in the
> status selector to get the message text box to appear when you have no
> status set currently. This is a trade-off of hiding the status box for
> people that don't use it regularly.
> I don't think we need to change this because I believe most people
> (especially if the status box will be keeping the status, as it now
> does) will either always have a message or never have a message. The
> next most common use case will be messages attached to particular saved
> statuses. I highly doubt there are enough users who frequently go from
> *having no message* to *typing a message* to outweigh the users who
> never use a message.
Well, this assumption might not capture the majority of the users. I myself
sometimes leave the message empty when I don't have any particular feelings
to express. However, every once in a while, I'd like to express something
and then I'd really like to click and type right away, instead of having to
click on a status (most of the time, the same status as what I'm having)
Even for people who don't regularly use the message box, it wouldn't be much
of a hassle to have it there. They can simply ignore it. On the other hand,
as for now, people who regularly use it have to do extra work to get the
message changed. So in all, having the message box will reduce the total
work need to be done for both groups of users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel