Nostr Web Client

What are the implications if the answer to "relative to whom?" is "Relative to ME"?

To be honest, I think that may ultimately be the best answer. There are conceptual problems with the “average user”, meaning that it is hard to define.

There are UX issues with “me” as the reference user. However, it is cleaner. It can be defined precisely.

The question is whether, from a UX standpoint, users will shy away from issuing attestations using themselves as the reference user. If so, let’s start with something users will not shy away from and work towards the theoretically cleaner method in baby steps.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

vinney...axkl 1y ago

If you think the answer to this will be a distracting tangent to this thread, quote this note and reply there.

What are the concerns you worry may cause a user to shy away from attesting with themselves as the reference user, UX-wise?

Is it about others finding out what you think? In my ideations on the subjective social graph, I've always preferred solutions that are optionally private. So when you're (algorithmically) assessing your conceptions of influence, relevance, etc. the conclusions are private to you, based on your private attestations + whatever else you know about the (transitive) public attestations of others.

And you can opt to surface certain of your own attestations as Public; which would in turn influence the conclusions that peers (who trust you by degrees) make when they are assessing their worldview in domains that involve you. But your private data wouldn't be visible to them nor enter their worldview.

(Incidentally, this set of affordances also leads to the feature of "masks" or personas/aliases. You could instantiate a new blank slate mask and build it up to be "a person who believes X set of things", and then view the world through those eyes. A distinction between public/private + multiple "mask" instances would allow this (let's be honest, probably social apocalypse-avoiding) exciting feature).

Now that I've thought aloud about that here, I see what concerns you, UX-wise. There are a dozen net-new concepts there to introduce slowly to a new user. With great power comes... great new user onboarding flows that level them up slowly 😆

david 1y ago

I think this is an appropriate topic for this thread. 👍🏻

In a nutshell: I come at this topic primarily from a deeply theoretical perspective. Which is quite distinct from coming at this from the perspective of a designer or product manager.

I am confident that the gap can be bridged, but I take care not to presume that I understand all relevant UX considerations until someone else weighs in who has expertise on the topic. It’s all too easy to miss something important. So I kinda presume I’ve missed something, until I have good reason to believe otherwise.

Which is why I have stated before: #WoT will die without GOOD DESIGN.

#nostrDesign

david 1y ago

Just had time to read through your post again. You’re absolutely correct: there are so many new concepts to wade through. Each one, on its own, can all too easily derail the thought process that gets us conceptually to where we need to go. Figuring out what order to introduce them is super difficult.

One important tool to help us chart the path is to ask constantly which aspects and applications of the grapevine users are most ready to use and devs are most ready to build.