More proof of the incompetence and cluelessness of the people involved. Can they spell S-P-A-M?

How about O-P-T I-N?

Don't launch a website till everything works.

Posted by: John Stockman on November 27, 2002 05:00 AM

---

 

The thing is, the AIFIA folks are *not* clueless. It's reasonable to assume that the people who have signed up for membership are presumably interested in joining in with the discussions and activities, because they have paid a membership fee to do so. But the option to sign up for the mailing list is still not there on the signup form (as they say in the email), and so some people might be unaware of the list's existence, or they may just not have got round to signing up for it yet.

So they could have sent out a one-off email inviting people to join the list. If they reckon that a majority of recipients (note: 115 people who have *paid for* membership of the organisation) would want to be on the list, then those recipients would have to explicitly take action to get on the list. By automatically signing them up for the list, they're removing that step, and thus providing a time-saving benefit for them.

On the other hand, you have the (presumed) minority of recipients who don't want to be on the list, and who now have to take explicit action to get off it. And there will also be a subset of the people who *do* want to be signed up who will not like the fact that they've been automatically subscribed.

It's poor email etiquette, but not 100% clueless. It's the sort of thing you can get away with when you've got 115 members, but not when you've got thousands.

Posted by: Martin on November 27, 2002 08:27 AM

---

 

Name-calling is not especially constructive.

That aside, new members are no longer automatically added to the AIfIA-members list. Instead, they are emailed a welcome message and invited to opt in; most are doing so. And a large majority of the initial group has opted to remain on the list.

I'm sure anyone who has ever launched of a new volunteer organization, with a new site and new processes, has also experienced similar start-up problems. We who are volunteering our time to manage and grow the AIfIA have made and will continue to make our share of mistakes, and appreciate the great support and patience we've received from AIfIA members. And we invite constructive critics to volunteer their time to make AIfIA even better.

Posted by: Louis Rosenfeld on December 2, 2002 10:27 AM

---

 

and the archives are now private.

It's funny that folks on a usability site are so quick to blame users for error. Have you explored mailman software? done usability tests on it? ;-) Many settings are quite complex and poorly documented. Unless one is very familar with it, it's easy to set up incorrectly.

A while back when I was at Carbon IQ managing the progenitor of AIfIA, the cocktail hour, I was looking for a mailinglist managment software and was really impressed with mojo (http://mojo.skazat.com/)-- it seemed very usable, very user-friendly. But for some reason it corrupts on a regular basis, and then I have to go in an manually remove the list names, reinstall mojo and resubscribe the list. I eventually dumpted it-- user friendly should include stable. I'm not running the AIfIA member list, but I am sympathetic to the person who has to wend their way through that set-up nad try to wrok through the program's intricaticies.

Anyhow, I think there is an opportunity to write a bit of simple software for running mailing and discussion lists that is stable, user friendly, and perhaps builds in basic list-ettiquette. After all, you are in the land of "Don't blame the user" you are in the land of "build for the user"

Posted by: christina on December 2, 2002 10:42 AM

---

 

Huh...excuses/reason aside, seems like saying "We're sorry, we screwed up. We're trying to make up for it" would go a whole lot further.

Posted by: on December 3, 2002 07:48 AM

---

 

Seems like there is a zero-tolerance policy for some people now, I guess because of the amount of spam they receive?

Posted by: alastc on December 3, 2002 10:46 AM

---

 

Because they should know better. And set the example. And it's a poor workman that blames his tools.

Posted by: on December 3, 2002 12:08 PM

---

 

Christina, the most usable mailing list software I've seen is the Yahoo groups offering. I believe they have an option to turn of advertising, although I understand wanting to host your own mailing list.

Posted by: PeterV on December 3, 2002 12:45 PM

---

 

We did apologize -- on the list, to the list. If you were one of the offended, you would have received that apology. Otherwise you are just someone who read the note and thought the worst without investigating.

It's fun to criticize, it's hard to build. Empathy is our single greatest asset as user-centered designers. If you don't have it, you are in the wrong business. I'm not running the member list, but I have sympathy for how hard it is to get a list right, to build something out of the gate and get it on the mark without tripping up.

When you see something wrong, you call it, you help the person build it better, and you move on to the next problem. Otherwise you are just a jaybird.

Posted by: christina on December 5, 2002 01:52 AM

---

 

Well, the page has mysteriously disappeared, so investigation is somewhat tough to do now.

You speak of empathy, and I agree - it's exactly what this situation seems to have lacked. Empathy would have prevented that send button from being pulled until a better, opt-in approach was found.

Posted by: on December 5, 2002 07:32 AM

---

 

1. The page was not pulled, it was made members only. If you are a member, you can investigate. This is another mistake that was made and corrected. Members can now freely communicate without fear of spam.

Now speaking not as AIfIA, but as christina....

2. Who are you, anonymous one, that you know all and never make mistakes? I'd like to learn from you by looking over your work. Then I can take that wisdom back to my novice team and help them become better.

I think it is not only useful but necessary to criticize what you see are mistakes. Throwing rocks is just nasty. Stockman's mail was insulting and non-helpful, Martin's and Peter V's were helpful and solution-oriented.

Let's compare two potential styles for criticism:

a. "You clueless assh*le, you don't know what you are doing loser hah hah"
b. "Hmm, this is wrong because of x and y. How about trying q and z? or perhaps looking into m?"

What do you think will make the given product more usable? Time for a revisit to tog. http://www.asktog.com/columns/047HowToWriteAReport.html

Many folks seem to be able to complain about Jakob's authoritarian tactics while emulating them. I find this very interesting.

Posted by: christina on December 5, 2002 01:51 PM

---