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

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Mar 19 10:14:55 UTC 2018


On 9 Feb 2018, at 18:44, Daniel Wisnewski <daniel.wisnewski at tigase.net> wrote:
> 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.

We’ve had 'impromptu chat’ in Swift for quite a while, and doing this on a temporary basis is *horrendous*. We’ve tried, I think it’s basically a non-starter, and we’re going to move to using persistent rooms instead - it just doesn’t work otherwise as soon as multiple clients are involved.

/K

> 
> --
>   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 ||_________________________________________________||



More information about the Members mailing list