[OT] UIs for User Confusion (was: Re: Friendly XMPP Branding (Re: [Standards] XMPP vs. Jabber))

Dave lists+jabber_standards at bigfatdave.com
Mon Mar 12 03:34:16 UTC 2007

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 08:06:21AM +1100, Daniel Noll wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2007 17:58, Dave wrote:

> > > Or even better, with a hierarchy:
> > >
> > >   IM (XMPP/Jabber)
> > >   Legacy IM networks (to be eventually discontinued by the FBI)

> > This is again misinformation.  It's also introducing an unnecessary menu
> > into a UI, which is poor UI design.  (Read: it'll lose you users.)

> The only "misinformation" here is that the FBI are involved.

...and that they'll eventually be discontinued ... as long as AOL decides to
keep its OSCAR servers up, AIM hasn't been discontinued. . .

> The job of 
> discontinuing the legacy IM networks will be performed by the users 
> themselves, given enough time.

As I just noted above, the users only have an indirect say.  If Bill Gates
doesn't pull the plug on MSN IM, it won't become "discontinued," even if every
user on the planet stops using it.

> The legacy networks are, as the name implies, 
> still legacy.

...and they're still IM ... and categorizing XMPP as IM without categorizing
them too as IM is still just as misleading as it was before. . .

If you're trying to draw a distinction between XMPP, our newfangled IM system,
and all the old systems still hunkering around, you can try this:

+ Modern IM Systems
+-- Jabber/XMPP
+ Legacy IM Systems
+-- AIM
+-- YIM
+-- IM From The Evil Empire
+-- etc.

Notice how we're setting up two categories with no overlap, here.  Now, any user
who knows that AIM isn't modern will have no trouble picking the right category
for it.  (You still may alienate newbies, though, since last I checked, the
"Legacy" IM systems are still more popular than the modern ones, so calling them
"Legacy IM Systems" might still be premature.  That's strictly a UI issue,
though, and you can certainly make a case that they are legacy systems, at least
in certain circles.  However, I'd like to point out just for the record that I
wouldn't do it: I see no reason to have any categories at all in the UI, since
there aren't _that_ many IM systems total.)

> Daniel

 - Dave

More information about the Standards mailing list