Thanks for this. I can dig allowing better identification, and highlighting user relationships. Although I am against using pic avatars here for a number of reasons (policing them, aesthetic, distraction, etc.), I am more open to customization within some sort of constraints. insomniasexx pointed out that Designer News gives folk a pixel grid, which they can design however they wish. I also like Cedar's suggestion of choosing a color sequence. I really like zebra2's suggestion of having information revealed as you reply to the user. It doesn't add much clutter, and it is a good time to remind the commentor that the parent was written by a human. We were discussing this last night, and the idea of adding a note about a user came up again, much like rd95 suggested. Here's an example of something that might incorporate some of these ideas, it would be revealed when I reply to elizabeth: In addition to interaction data, there are two tweet-sized notes. You can choose a signature that others replying to you see, and they can add a note on your profile page, which appears to them when they reply. There are a number of modifications we could make to this, including some sort of constrained avatar. Suggestions/alternatives?
However small or nitpicky, there are a number of differences between avatars and images in the sidebar of a users profile. 1. We don't make it explicit that they are allowed (or disallowed) -- the sidebar simply uses the same markup as comments. Some users have chosen to place an embedded image there but it looks and feels fine with or without an image. 2. Avatars would be their own dedicated field and therefore users would feel compelled to upload something. But, just in case they don't, we would also need to make a "no avatar" avatar, which is a more complicated decision than one might expect. Facebook --- Designer News --- Empty States in General Also, do we crop them for you, allow you to crop them, etc. etc. (FYI, if you allow avatar uploading these days, users expect to have the ability to edit/crop like they can on facebook. It's terrible because Facebook's functionality is pretty rock-solid due to years of improvements and user testing and a great deal of code). 3. Would we host these images on hubski.com (eek!) or 3rd party image providers? While imgur is pretty good about allowing users to upload images and embedding them anywhere, they have been known to shut down embedded photos for specific sites/forums if they generate an insane amount of clicks. A random forum I was on actually had imgur block all their embedded images (not just avatars) on the forum unless they were uploaded by a paid account. I don't think the forum was generating that many clicks. 3b. The weight of a page loading images would increase ~100kb (this is a v. high estimate) per image, depending on sizes we allowed and if we implemented some backend jazz to rescale/convert/compress. That means a page with 20 comments would now be an additional 4mb. Even if we say each image is 50kb, that's 2mb for 20 comments. 4. When you visit a user's profile, it is assumed that the content on their page is theirs and chosen to be shared by them. Profile pages are visited relatively infrequently and with the intention that you you want to learn more about a user. If I were to visit a profile page and see a big dong, I would blame that user, not Hubski, and I would succeed in learning something new about said user. However, when you are on a post / pub page (like this one), your intentions are to read the post / comments and interact with others. A dong photo, or any number of photos, would disrupt that experience and give users who came to read the post something that they were not looking for. This is not just for users of the site - I can also take a post page, specific comment, or global feel, email it to my mother, post it on my facebook, or do whatever I want with it without being scared that a dong might pop up in their face. 5. Additionally the content on post pages is a mixture of users and (in the case of muting) can be somewhat controlled by the original poster because it is technically "mk's post" or "_refugee_'s post". Would we see an influx of muting or dissuasion of posting your own posts elsewhere (like facebook/twitter) because there are rogue commenters with inappropriate photos? BTW, what constitutes and inappropriate photo? Dongs? Butts? KKK hoods? Girl in bikini? Hot shirtless guy? Ugly shirtless guy? 5. Photos, even not dong-shots, would be helpful in some cases and detrimental in others. While a flower may remind you who I am, would that flower cause you read my comments, even those comments which are non-gender-related, as if I were a girl? Would that affect the interaction you had with me positively or negatively? While most hubskiers know my gender, there are always a few noobs who assume I am male (because the entire internet is male). Elsewhere on the internet I am more often male than female. I never take offense to this because I don't think my gender should come into play, except when I am using my experience as a female as a base for my comments (ie: I know what it's like to bleed once a month because I am a bloody female.) Anyways, I'm obviously not a fan of avatars. I do like Designer New's pixel art creation but I don't like that I never feel like mine is good enough or represents me enough. I've also redone it like 10 times and spent upwards of 20 hours on it. The big images were lost during the server move so I started redoing that the other day when I was hungover. I've spent more time on Designer News making pixel art than I have commenting on Designer News.
There is definitely room for some sort of small image to the right of "my interactions." That said, I too am not interested in policing image content. I say we move forward with exactly what you've shown here to start. It's awesome! I like that we can control our message to people. "Check out tng podcast" for example, would definitely be mine. I'd be excited to see what people put there about themselves. I think we would get a further glimpse in to people we've been interacting with for a long time, some for years.
Hmm. I like the signature idea, but I don't like the idea of having to hit the reply button for it to show up. What if you made a button, for that information to pop up, much like you do to see who shared a post or who is following a user? Edit: And maybe you can make it two lines, one that each person makes for themself, the other each user can customize for who they looking at, much like the customizable user tag idea.
I'm not sure this is different, as you needn't navigate to another page, it simply reveals the info in the reply drop down. The button says 'reply', but it works as an info button as well. That's what is there: elizabeth's signature, and my notes on elizabeth.Hmm. I like the signature idea, but I don't like the idea of having to hit the reply button for it to show up. What if you made a button, for that information to pop up, much like you do to see who shared a post or who is following a user?
Edit: And maybe you can make it two lines, one that each person makes for themself, the other each user can customize for who they looking at, much like the customizable user tag idea.
I don't know how difficult this would be to code, but what about a hover-to-view sort of thing? Hover over someone's username and you see a blurb with interactions and the two info lines. I just feel like tacking this on to the reply button adds a whole lot of clutter.
Yeah, but I feel that if you did that, it would clash with the rest of the mechanics of the site. As in, the feature serves a similar purpose, but suddenly you have to go about getting the information in a different way. Ah. I gotcha. I guess I read that wrong. It's definitely a good idea.I'm not sure this is different, as you needn't navigate to another page, it simply reveals the info in the reply drop down. The button says 'reply', but it works as an info button as well.
That's what is there: elizabeth's signature, and my notes on elizabeth.