[jadmin] Advertising xmpp

[Sander Devrieze]

2008/1/5, Samuel Penn <sam at glendale.org.uk>:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008 12:48:14 Sander Devrieze wrote:
> > 2008/1/5, Samuel Penn <sam at glendale.org.uk>:
> > > A small list would be better than a big list
> >
> > Why?
>
> Is there an advantage to a big list?
>
>   * It's harder to maintain.

Harder is not impossible

>   * If you list lots of small unreliable servers, people who
>     choose them are likely to get a bad impression of XMPP.

Unreliable servers should not be on the list; it's not impossible to
add such measures, only hard ;-)

>   * It may be confusing as to what the differences are between
>     the servers, when really there isn't any.

How can this be confusing and how can this confusion be fixed?

> Giving a user a big list of options, without any sensible way of
> determining which they should choose, seems pointless. They will
> most likely just choose the first in the list.

Is that a problem? Would it help to randomize the list?

> I can't think of an advantage of having a big list (it doesn't
> mean there isn't one, just that I can't think of one and haven't
> seen any mentioned here).

It's fair? It's compatible with the goal of openess (no hugh entry
barriers to get on a list).

> Email clients don't present a user with a big list of email servers.

You can't register an email account with an email client.

> On Saturday 05 January 2008 12:55:29 Tomasz Sterna wrote:
> > And who will be the judge which servers are "more equal" to be included
> > on the list, and which are "less equal" and won't be included?
>
> Does it matter if you're not on the list?

Yes, it may be an entry barrier and entry barriers are not compatible
with the mantra of openness of the XMPP community.

<snip>
> On Saturday 05 January 2008 12:48:14 Sander Devrieze wrote:
> > My main email address does not indicate it is an email address. People
> > just call it "email address". We currently lack some similar naming
> > like "email address" and this is a *big* issue (ping to XSF again).
>
> Yes, I agree. We're in the unfortunate situation that the open protocol
> came along after the walled gardens had been set up. People can just say
> email address, or web address, without caring about the server
> implementation because SMTP and HTTP were open before any of the big
> companies realised the importance of email or the web and tried to
> create their own versions.

Not true, there were similar issues with email: there also were walled
gardens for electronic mail.

<snip>
> Both Gaim and Kopete (I'm on Linux) present a number of options when
> creating an account, like AIM, Jabber, MSN etc. Very simply, they
> could present GTalk as a separate option. Technically, it's the same
> as Jabber, but most people won't know this. Alternatively, they
> could be presented as the same option (Jabber/Google Mail). In either
> case, people who use Google mail might be more inclined to use the
> talk facility.

Clients like Pidgin and Adium already do this but I don't think this
is a good idea at all: in this way it creates even more fraction.

> Many programs have a hints and tips dialog that pops up, and the link
> between GTalk and XMPP/Jabber could be mentioned there.

Could be a possibility indeed, but maybe there is a better way?

-- 
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.