[Members] "Group Chat" vs. "Chatroom" (Was: Terminology (and about the Glossary on the wiki))

Daniel Wisnewski daniel.wisnewski at tigase.net
Fri Feb 9 18:44:32 UTC 2018

Has there been consideration as to whether group chats in XMPP v2.0 will
be always persistent or not?  If we choose to retain the option to have
temporary or persistent rooms, verbiage should reflect that.  Words like
group, or channel suggest a permanent room, which could be less
intuitive if they are temporary.  I'm also in favor of using chatroom as
it does have some implied impermanence.
  Daniel Wisnewski
  daniel.wisnewski at tigase.net

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018, at 5:57 AM, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> I think WhatsApp is using the term Group instead of group chat. I
> kinda wish I would have chosen that phrase as well. I just don't want
> to rename it again just now. (maybe for the 2.0 release)> 
> On Feb 9, 2018 14:30, "Georg Lukas" <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
>> Hi JC,
>>  thanks for picking up the ball! Finally there is some more
>>  discussion>>  regarding our nomenclature!
>>  * JC Brand <jc at opkode.com> [2018-02-09 12:45]:
>>  > I took a look at what the Glossary on the XSF wiki says for MUC
>>  > rooms, and I>>  > would like to make the argument why I disagree with its
>>  > recommended term of "group chat".>> 
>>  I've spent some time thinking about the implications and the look
>>  of the>>  different variants, and also checked the existing implementations.
>>  I agree with your opposition to "channel" (which is btw. a name used>>  as early as 1992 on the IRC network), and I tend to agree that a
>>  "chatroom" is a better name for the "classic" MUC use case of
>>  semi-anonymous public conference rooms.
>>  However, thinking forward, I'd like to make impromptu chats, as
>>  described in <https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Easy_Group_Chats>, a
>>  first class>>  citizen of the modern XMPP experience.
>>  Conversations already has those, and they are modelled loosely after>>  other mobile IM systems where you can invite a bunch of friends
>>  into a>>  private group. The arguments you provide in your mail make the term>>  "group chat" look like a better fit for them.
>>  At least WhatsApp and Conversations are using the term "group
>>  chat", and>>  yaxim has adopted it in the current beta version as well.
>>  I think it would be bad for the UX if we provide both "chatroom" for>>  classic public MUCs and "group chat" for the private multi-person
>>  conferences in our clients, so it is reasonable to decide upon one.>> 
>>  Public MUCs are not widely used by normal people. Private chats
>>  (hopefully) are.
>>  These are the reasons.
>>  Georg
>>  --
>>  || http://op-co.de ++  GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++
>>  || N  ++>>  || gpg: 0x962FD2DE ||  o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5
>>  || R+  ||>>  || Ge0rG: euIRCnet ||  X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e++++ h- r++
>>  || y?   ||>>  ++ IRCnet OFTC OPN
>>  ||_________________________________________________||
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180209/62c21ff3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Members mailing list