Go to:
Discussion
Online Doc
File
Poll
Event
Meeting Request
Suggestion
Jenny Levine (staff)'s picture

Feedback on new "follow a group" feature

We're in the process of implementing a "follow a group" feature that would let anyone with a Connect account "follow" a group they're not a member of in order to receive email notifications of publicly-posted content.

Examples of how this could be used:

  • ALA members could "follow" the ALA Board or Council group to receive email notifications of new content that's posted to those group Connect spaces and marked as "public."
  • Councilors interested in following WAC's activities could "follow" our group to receive email notifications of public content added to our Connect space.
  • WAC members could "follow" the ALA staff Web Editorial Board (WEB) in order to automatically receive updates when we post our meeting notes there.

As we get down to the nitty gritty details of how this will work, I need some feedback from all of you. Please give me your input on the following questions by the end of the day on Thursday (March 10).

  1. As Connect works now, "followers" would get email notices that would let them reply via email to comment on public comment. Is this okay?
  2. We'd put a text designation after the author's name to indicate whether or not the person is a member of the group or not. For example, if I "followed" the Board and responded to a post by Keith Michael Fiels, it would say "(group member)" next to his name as the author of the post. When I add my comment, it would list me as "Jenny Levine (non-group member)". Are those labels sufficient, or do you have suggestions for better labels?
  3. Do you see other pitfalls or problems? Do you have additional suggestions you'd like to make? Please note that the email notifications for followers will only be for public content, and private content will never be shared outside the existing group roster.

Thanks!
Jenny

Kathleen McCook's picture

  1. As Connect works now, "followers" would get email notices that would let them reply via email to comment on public comment. Is this okay?

yes

  1. We'd put a text designation after the author's name to indicate whether or not the person is a member of the group or not. For example, if I "followed" the Board and responded to a post by Keith Michael Fiels, it would say "(group member)" next to his name as the author of the post. When I add my comment, it would list me as "Jenny Levine (non-group member)". Are those labels sufficient, or do you have suggestions for better labels?

seems fine

  1. Do you see other pitfalls or problems? Do you have additional suggestions you'd like to make? Please note that the email notifications for followers will only be for public content, and private content will never be shared outside the existing group roster.

right, this works

Kathleen de la Peña McCook

Robin Kear's picture

I think that all of these details are fine. The (group member) labels are universal enough for all kinds of groups and committees that show up here. You don't want to have to create all different kinds of labels. I think we should go for it.

Robin

 

 

 

Jenny Levine (staff)'s picture

Thank you both for the feedback! Unless someone speaks up with a concern today, we're going to get started implementing this feature so it can go live this month.

Jenny

Kathy Tomajko's picture

We're in the process of implementing a "follow a group" feature that would let anyone with a Connect account "follow" a group they're not a member of in order to receive email notifications of publicly-posted content.

Examples of how this could be used:

  • ALA members could "follow" the ALA Board or Council group to receive email notifications of new content that's posted to those group Connect spaces and marked as "public."
  • Councilors interested in following WAC's activities could "follow" our group to receive email notifications of public content added to our Connect space.
  • WAC members could "follow" the ALA staff Web Editorial Board (WEB) in order to automatically receive updates when we post our meeting notes there.

As we get down to the nitty gritty details of how this will work, I need some feedback from all of you. Please give me your input on the following questions by the end of the day on Thursday (March 10).

  1. As Connect works now, "followers" would get email notices that would let them reply via email to comment on public comment. Is this okay?  This works for me, Jenny.
  2. We'd put a text designation after the author's name to indicate whether or not the person is a member of the group or not. For example, if I "followed" the Board and responded to a post by Keith Michael Fiels, it would say "(group member)" next to his name as the author of the post. When I add my comment, it would list me as "Jenny Levine (non-group member)". Are those labels sufficient, or do you have suggestions for better labels?  These labels are clear from my perspective.
  3. Do you see other pitfalls or problems? Do you have additional suggestions you'd like to make? Please note that the email notifications for followers will only be for public content, and private content will never be shared outside the existing group rosterJenny -- I can't think of any other issues or problems with this.    -- Kathy
Aaron Dobbs's picture

Just a thought on the membership status "label"
How about these instead:
* Group Member
and any one of these:
* Observer / Commenter / Participant

"non-member" sort of implies a negative status

* "Observer" implies a sort of passivity
* "Commenter" is a strict factual description
* "Participant" is a more welcoming and implies openness to ideas and observations

My preference would be for "Participant"

-Aaron
:-)'

"Always remember everyone is working to make the organization better in their own way."
-Eli Mina, ALA Parliamentarian

Jenny Levine (staff)'s picture

From that list of label options, I'd lean towards "observer," because "commenter" may not indicate to new users that it's a non-group member (since anyone can comment, including group members) and "participant" might wrongly imply that the person is part of the group. I'm all for positive and inclusive but for the folks who won't read the help documents, I want to be as clear as possible.

So, what do others think? Is "observer" okay or do you have a preference for one of the other labels (or something totally different)?

Thanks,
Jenny

Robin Kear's picture

I agree with observer.

Robin

Marsha Iverson (non-member)'s picture

Me too!

Marsha

Marsha Iverson Public Relations Specialist King County Library System Issaquah, WA 98047 425.369.3277

Kathy Tomajko's picture

I agree with "observer" as well. -- Kathy

Aaron Dobbs's picture

Fine by me, I was just offering options :)

As this is a Public Discussion, I'm going to toss it out to the alacoun-list and see if we can get some opinions from a wider cross-sections of ALA at large.

-Aaron
:-)'

"Always remember everyone is working to make the organization better in their own way."
-Eli Mina, ALA Parliamentarian