Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Threads in Beta

element.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#11

Post by stavros »

alanfranz wrote: post #2

I think threading in chat apps is a terrible idea. It’s a way to merge email and chat, but chat apps like Slack aren’t really suited for such replacement imho. Why threading if there’s not much noise? And if the noise is too much, maybe a public chat is not the best idea. on Slack, navigating a channel between “main” messages and thread messages is a nightmare, and since “main” messages are not just a subject, you sp…

Don't conflate a bad implementation with a bad idea. Slack's threads suck, Zulip's threads are amazing and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#12

Post by 12baad4db82 »

dmitriid wrote: post #3

None of these "innovative chats" that already use a browser to display them can even come up with the idea of tabs . Nope, they all insist on keeping everything inside a single window. So even if you have thread "for better communication with no noise", it still gets lost in all other threads, and they come up with workarounds like a dedicated page for threads etc. Just give me tabs, damnit.

I'm not sure I completely follow, aren't tabs still within the same window? How would tabs solve the 'keeping everything inside a single window' problem?

Is the conversation list on the left side of the window not analogous to tabs? A conversation can be pinned there which would be providing the same experience as keeping a conversation open in a tab.

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#13

Post by kgeist »

dmitriid wrote: post #3

None of these "innovative chats" that already use a browser to display them can even come up with the idea of tabs . Nope, they all insist on keeping everything inside a single window. So even if you have thread "for better communication with no noise", it still gets lost in all other threads, and they come up with workarounds like a dedicated page for threads etc. Just give me tabs, damnit.

We use Rocket Chat and it's even worse than that. The entire channel is marked as "there're new messages" but you have no idea which one of the threads has new messages so you have to look through all of them. Good luck if it's some old thread from weeks ago. Or maybe there's some option in the UI to quickly find it but I'm not aware of such.

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#14

Post by viccuad »

1-level threads is not enough. You fork a thread for a new topic, and users can keep derailing the topic with tangents inside of that thread.

The traditional chat client expects the convention of users going back to the main room to create a completely separate thread.

There's other ways. Example, technical email discussions (convention: bottom posting, with good mail client with threading). Or reddit/HN. On email, each message automatically creates a new thread, and you can ignore threads that aren't interesting to you. But sadly, the convention is not enforced centrally through the client as everyone has their own. You need a tight culture for it to work.

I wish I had the convention enforced centrally (everyone using chat clients that behave roughly the same), yet have every message create a thread (so tangent to topics can live on their own, or be ignored). Or at minimum, 1-threads with titles (ala Streams (rooms) and Topics(threads) of Zulip), so people stick to the topic.

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#15

Post by m3adow »

kadoban wrote: post #5
alanfranz wrote: post #2

I think threading in chat apps is a terrible idea. It’s a way to merge email and chat, but chat apps like Slack aren’t really suited for such replacement imho. Why threading if there’s not much noise? And if the noise is too much, maybe a public chat is not the best idea. on Slack, navigating a channel between “main” messages and thread messages is a nightmare, and since “main” messages are not just a subject, you sp…

I don't really see the issue with it. In Slack, we have a channel for our team. In that channel we have conversations, often more than one at a time, spread out over minutes to days. Why shouldn't each conversation have its own separate thread? The only real problem(s) I have with threads in Slack are: 1. some people suck at remembering to reply in thread. This isn't too serious though, once there's more than 2 messa…

I totally agree here. At the beginning I disliked Slack threads. But apart from the notification issue, I think the advantages of having a more focussed discussion where everything can be found in one place outweighs the disadvantages.

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#16

Post by smcleod »

alanfranz wrote: post #2

I think threading in chat apps is a terrible idea. It’s a way to merge email and chat, but chat apps like Slack aren’t really suited for such replacement imho. Why threading if there’s not much noise? And if the noise is too much, maybe a public chat is not the best idea. on Slack, navigating a channel between “main” messages and thread messages is a nightmare, and since “main” messages are not just a subject, you sp…

Threads are an absolute must to keep the noise down and conversation relevant - at least in working environments when using apps like Slack.

Not everyone has strict communication protocols or enjoys communicating succinctly, it's easier just to have one rule - start your convos as a thread.

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#17

Post by viccuad »

alanfranz wrote: post #2

I think threading in chat apps is a terrible idea. It’s a way to merge email and chat, but chat apps like Slack aren’t really suited for such replacement imho. Why threading if there’s not much noise? And if the noise is too much, maybe a public chat is not the best idea. on Slack, navigating a channel between “main” messages and thread messages is a nightmare, and since “main” messages are not just a subject, you sp…

The underlying issue to me is the different velocity of different conversations between the same people in a room. Conversation 1 can be fast, with short messages and informal, Conversation 2 can be slow, with long technical messages or attached files. And all in between.

Sometimes one type of convo transforms into another. And the tool should reframe it so: either by providing a schism for a new thread, changing the topic of the thread, or so.

This is something that tools with N-level threads, where each message creates a new thread (technical email discussions with top posting) do very well. I wish that each message would create a new thread. And that the UX allowed to me pivot from short and informal to long and thought out messages easily.

From an informal conversation of the daily, to starting a thread from a message, where we discuss a technical implementation in a long comment. And then back to someone opening an informal thread starting from a phrase of that long comment (ala document reviews).

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#18

Post by Karrot_Kream »

barnabee wrote: post #7
dmitriid wrote: post #3

None of these "innovative chats" that already use a browser to display them can even come up with the idea of tabs . Nope, they all insist on keeping everything inside a single window. So even if you have thread "for better communication with no noise", it still gets lost in all other threads, and they come up with workarounds like a dedicated page for threads etc. Just give me tabs, damnit.

Absolutely. I miss having multiple windows, each with one or more tabs, all respectful of my screen real estate! With most IRC clients or multi protocol chat programs you could have a couple of important channels always visible on a second monitor, key people you DM a lot in a tabbed window somewhere prominent, active chats open next to your work, and everything else in the main app window, minimised. Now we have a w…

Yeah as kadoban says, Matrix has no such restriction only Element does. You can do exactly what you're talking about above with other clients.

Re: Introducing Threads in Beta

#20

Post by dmitriid »

12baad4db82 wrote: post #12
dmitriid wrote: post #3

None of these "innovative chats" that already use a browser to display them can even come up with the idea of tabs . Nope, they all insist on keeping everything inside a single window. So even if you have thread "for better communication with no noise", it still gets lost in all other threads, and they come up with workarounds like a dedicated page for threads etc. Just give me tabs, damnit.

I'm not sure I completely follow, aren't tabs still within the same window? How would tabs solve the 'keeping everything inside a single window' problem? Is the conversation list on the left side of the window not analogous to tabs? A conversation can be pinned there which would be providing the same experience as keeping a conversation open in a tab.

You can open threads and windows in separate tabs, and switch between them without losing where they are and having to search for them
Post reply on HN