On 17 mrt. 2015, at 19:45, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/03/15 15:32, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
Indentation is a crappy workaround for when your communication system does not support a sane threading model - it isn't a threading model or a substitute for one.
Err, what's the threading model in Flow's UI? Or Facebook, phpbb, and so on, or whatever other site you were referring to that knitting grandmothers use? Can you really call not having any (user-visible) threading model a threading model?
From what I've seen of those types of discussions, people have to either explicitly refer back to whatever they're replying to (e.g. Twitter tries to, and doesn't very well from what I've seen), quote whatever they're replying to (e.g. phpbb, email (especially how Gmail renders it)), and/or just deal with having to dig through an undifferentiated pile of replies to find the ones that might be replying to the post they're interested in (phpbb, Facebook).
On a lot of sites they can also get away with a lack of threading because the discussions themselves are relatively inactive, where you don't have multiple people jumping in and replying to different points. Such inactivity isn't the case on many wikis, where discussion is more key to their functionality, and certainly shouldn't be an assumption here.
I still think that a threading and collapsing model as in http://tweakers.net/nieuws/101962/google-maakt-leeftijdsrating-verplicht-voo... http://tweakers.net/nieuws/101962/google-maakt-leeftijdsrating-verplicht-voor-android-apps.html#reacties makes a lot more sense.
It’s limited in width, readable, collapsible, has threading with indenting, has a maximum amount of indenting, and is a tech website that is also very intensive, and all over the place.
DJ