[FFML] A thought on the future of the FFML

[The Wanderer]

On 06/26/2013 11:57 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:46 AM, The Wanderer <wanderer at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/26/2013 11:38 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

>>> If the email presentation style depends on the user's client,
>>> that would be an argument for making the Web forum have a user
>>> account setting to display one post per page or to display all
>>> the posts in one page - again, so that the presentation can be
>>> just like in email.
>> 
>> The trouble with that is that it would lead to different people
>> using different quoting styles, based on what they see. (This might
>> happen anyway if the interface that you're seeing is relatively
>> common, but it's still what I'm trying to avoid.)
> 
> Again, the interface that I'm seeing does not change the appropriate
> quoting style.  Even if I see the entire thread in one page, each
> post is still clearly a post, and I should quote the relevant
> sections of it when replying.  Notice that I am doing so now, despite
> seeing the entire thread in one page.

I'm not sure I agree. (In fact, I think my entire original 2007 post is
based on the premise that I don't agree.)

For example, when the post you're replying to is the one immediately
preceding yours, and consists of e.g. only one paragraph (as many posts
in many Web forums do), and will still be visible on the same page as
your post when your post is added, the original text will be immediately
visible for context even if you don't quote; quoting it would be
unnecessary duplication and clutter.

In more complex scenarios, the question becomes a bit murkier, but it's
still far from clear that quoting is the correct thing to do in all
cases when the original post will still be visible.

The trouble with the dual interface is that it means the question of
whether the original post will still be visible depends entirely on the
reader's configuration, not on anything the poster can control or even
determine.

This is complicated further by the fact that different people have
different ideas of what's correct when it comes to quoting when
replying; the difference between top-posting and interleaved replying is
one major one, and I suspect that the mindset which leads you to use
interleaved replies also contributes to your opinion that quoting is
always the correct thing to do.

> It would seem simple to have the Web view only allow quoting a post
> as a way of starting a reply - no "quick reply" or the like - and to
> reject a post that did not quote any lines, or that quoted more lines
> than new content (or perhaps more than twice as much, for cases where
> one replies to a long paragraph with a short comment such as "that
> was too long: break it when you change who's speaking").

I've seen newsgroups that impose a maximum-quoted-lines-percentage
requirement (news.admin.net-abuse.policy being the one that springs to
mind), and while it does help in some ways, it also makes contributing
to discussions more difficult.

>> It is my personal opinion that HTML E-mail should never have been
>> invented, and should never be used. That doesn't change the fact
>> that it's widely supported and is the de-facto standard in most
>> places.
> 
> Yeah, and that's the problem.  We're talking about the FFML in 2013.
> Still, there seem to be ways to celebrate text while accommodating
> modern sensibilities - if we apply more design sense than most who
> set up forums do.

I agree, there do seem to be such ways. Implementing them may be a bit
of another question, but I think it should be eminently possible if
we're willing to put in the effort.

-- 
    The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
   - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger