6 ms·

Unfortunately IRC has failed to keep up with the U/X of centralized chat services like discord which is a shame because an open protocol chat seems needed for t

Unfortunately IRC has failed to keep up with the U/X of centralized chat services like discord which is a shame because an open protocol chat seems needed for the internet. Why does open protocol usually mean crippled U/X?

vegai_ 4y ago
Irssi's UX is better than that of any other chat software, though. Why it hasn't been replicated for things like XMPP and Matrix is probably due to the more difficult and featureful state transitions of those protocols.
- Jiejeing 4y ago
  There are several XMPP clients trying to replicate -more or less freely- the same experiences, such as poezio [1] or profanity [2]. YMMV of course, and nothing will be a carbon copy of irssi, except if you use a plugin (but in my experience bolting another protocol on top of a client for another will result in a poor UX). I do believe there are TUI clients for Matrix, but I am unsure of their maturity and state, or how they compare to Irssi. [1] https://poez.io/en/ https://poez.io/en/ [2] https://profanity-im.github.io/ https://profanity-im.github.io/
  - ppjet6 4y ago
    I was going to say, "Have you tried poezio?".
- jssfr 4y ago
  I switched over from irssi to poezio a few years ago (with a self-hosted biboumi as XMPP<->IRC gateway) and I don't miss irssi (anymore). Of course, the transition was a bit bumpy, but I think that'd go both ways. As someone else said, it's not a direct replica. Yet, it feels close enough and not too close for the uncanny valley.
arka2147483647 4y ago
Who pays for the UI to be developed? If open source/community, then chronically starved for resources and contributors have divided directions. If commercial, then they want to differentiate and do embrace, extend, extinguish, in order to drive everybody to their client. I have come to believe, that the protocol spec and servers, is just the easy part of chat apps.
- BonitaPersona 4y ago
  In an ideal (and therefore unrealistic) world, it would be done by the UX designer/dev equivalent counterparts of the ones developing these open source softwares. Why do low level engineers work freely on FOSS but designers or UX devs don't is the question.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Proper UX designers would be ridiculed in the FOSS world because everything is bloat or too corporate. If it doesn't look like Windows XP or a 70s terminal it isn't welcome in FOSS. Gnome is probably the best example of good design in the FOSS space and look how people talk about it. Even in this thread you have people claiming being able to view images and video inline in a chat is an "anti feature". Can you imagine trying to design a product for people so detached from reality?
    - palata 4y ago
      Because they have different opinions doesn't mean they are detached from reality. IRCCloud shows images in the feed, for instance. I just like the fact that I don't need that overhead in my client if I don't want it.
chungy 4y ago
I would say the opposite rather, the UX of IRC clients (eg, HexChat) is so polished and refined, it puts all the proprietary chat services (and their clients) to shame.
323 4y ago
Because extremely few programmers which are attracted by creating protocols have U/X design skills. In fact, they will probably say something like "just use the CLI, it's a superior way anyway".
eurasiantiger 4y ago
Which alternatives have you tried?
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Do any IRC clients support inline media upload/viewing, profile pictures, voice/video calls, or replies/threading? These are the things I would consider the core essentials of IM. Any serious platform has all of this plus a whole lot more.
  - palata 4y ago
    Have you tried IRCCloud?
    - _flux 4y ago
      So to get all or some of those features you can use IRCCloud. Is it the same as IRC having those features? I could (and do) access IRC over Matrix and then I also have access to those features. But in this case also users not using the same client or same server as I am get to see those things.
      - palata 4y ago
        Ok maybe I should take them separately: > Do any IRC clients support inline media upload/viewing, profile pictures, voice/video calls, or replies/threading? These are the things I would consider the core essentials of IM. Any serious platform has all of this plus a whole lot more. Media upload is purely on the client side. If IRCCloud lets you to drag-and-drop an image, uploads it to some server, and then sends the URL, then that's still entirely IRC (I will receive the URL), but IRCCloud is making it easier for you. Same for viewing content: I send a URL, and your IRCCloud will show a preview (image/video), while my client won't. That's purely on the client side. For voice and video calls, IMO I don't want it in my messaging app. I can use my browser for that, or a dedicated app. And again, share a link to my videoconference over IRC. Replies/threading are a tricky one. I hate the replies in Discord, and I don't really get threads. I see Slack channels where the rule is "answer only in threads", which to me says that they want a forum (like Discourse), not an instant messaging app. > But in this case also users not using the same client or same server as I am get to see those things. Pretty sure that if you use replies or threads in Matrix when talking in an IRC channel, then people on IRC won't see them as replies or threads.
unknownaccount 4y ago
There should be a way to decouple the UX from the program and if people want a Discord “skin” for IRC that looks nearly 1:1 they should be able to have that.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I don't think that would help. The IRC protocol is missing so many messaging features that platforms like Discord have. Just looking like Discord wouldn't fix that.
  - unknownaccount 4y ago
    What doesnt it have?
  - Jolter 4y ago
    This very initiative (IRC 3) seems to be trying to fix that. At least parts of it.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  This is lipstick on a pig. I'd be perfectly happy with a client that looks like IRC but has the features of Discord. I'd like to be able to chat on my phone without running an external service that provides a modern HTTP based protocol.
  - palata 4y ago
    Not sure I get your point. Say you use IRCCloud on your phone, you don't need anything else, do you?
    - lmm 4y ago
      IRCCloud is fine, but it's more expensive than Discord, the UX is not quite as nice for reasons inherent to the IRC model, and it's not really more open in any substantive sense (my phone will be running the proprietary IRCCloud application that speaks a proprietary IRCCloud protocol). So why would one bother?
ilyt 4y ago
> Why does open protocol usually mean crippled U/X? Open is entirely unrelated to that, but optional features means crippled UI/UX in the long run. Some server won't support it so users can't use it, or some client won't support it so they will see garbage/nothing when others use that feature. XMMP showed that well enough and it seems IRCv3 follows suit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LinuxBender 4y ago
FWIW TheLounge [1] and Convos [2] can front-end an IRC server giving it much of the look of a modern client and also chat persistence when using TheLounge in private mode. The trade-off in my opinion is scalability. With a bog standard IRCD I can handle tens of thousands of clients per node. Adding web persistent increases memory usage. [1] - https://github.com/thelounge https://github.com/thelounge https://thelounge.chat/ https://thelounge.chat/ [2] - https://github.com/convos-chat/convos/ https://github.com/convos-chat/convos/ https://convos.chat/ https://convos.chat/

vegai_ 4y ago

Irssi's UX is better than that of any other chat software, though. Why it hasn't been replicated for things like XMPP and Matrix is probably due to the more difficult and featureful state transitions of those protocols.

Jiejeing 4y ago
There are several XMPP clients trying to replicate -more or less freely- the same experiences, such as poezio [1] or profanity [2]. YMMV of course, and nothing will be a carbon copy of irssi, except if you use a plugin (but in my experience bolting another protocol on top of a client for another will result in a poor UX). I do believe there are TUI clients for Matrix, but I am unsure of their maturity and state, or how they compare to Irssi. [1] https://poez.io/en/ https://poez.io/en/ [2] https://profanity-im.github.io/ https://profanity-im.github.io/
- ppjet6 4y ago
  I was going to say, "Have you tried poezio?".
jssfr 4y ago
I switched over from irssi to poezio a few years ago (with a self-hosted biboumi as XMPP<->IRC gateway) and I don't miss irssi (anymore). Of course, the transition was a bit bumpy, but I think that'd go both ways. As someone else said, it's not a direct replica. Yet, it feels close enough and not too close for the uncanny valley.

arka2147483647 4y ago

Who pays for the UI to be developed? If open source/community, then chronically starved for resources and contributors have divided directions. If commercial, then they want to differentiate and do embrace, extend, extinguish, in order to drive everybody to their client. I have come to believe, that the protocol spec and servers, is just the easy part of chat apps.

BonitaPersona 4y ago
In an ideal (and therefore unrealistic) world, it would be done by the UX designer/dev equivalent counterparts of the ones developing these open source softwares. Why do low level engineers work freely on FOSS but designers or UX devs don't is the question.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Proper UX designers would be ridiculed in the FOSS world because everything is bloat or too corporate. If it doesn't look like Windows XP or a 70s terminal it isn't welcome in FOSS. Gnome is probably the best example of good design in the FOSS space and look how people talk about it. Even in this thread you have people claiming being able to view images and video inline in a chat is an "anti feature". Can you imagine trying to design a product for people so detached from reality?
  - palata 4y ago
    Because they have different opinions doesn't mean they are detached from reality. IRCCloud shows images in the feed, for instance. I just like the fact that I don't need that overhead in my client if I don't want it.

chungy 4y ago

I would say the opposite rather, the UX of IRC clients (eg, HexChat) is so polished and refined, it puts all the proprietary chat services (and their clients) to shame.

323 4y ago

Because extremely few programmers which are attracted by creating protocols have U/X design skills. In fact, they will probably say something like "just use the CLI, it's a superior way anyway".

eurasiantiger 4y ago

Which alternatives have you tried?

Gigachad 4y ago
Do any IRC clients support inline media upload/viewing, profile pictures, voice/video calls, or replies/threading? These are the things I would consider the core essentials of IM. Any serious platform has all of this plus a whole lot more.
- palata 4y ago
  Have you tried IRCCloud?
  - _flux 4y ago
    So to get all or some of those features you can use IRCCloud. Is it the same as IRC having those features? I could (and do) access IRC over Matrix and then I also have access to those features. But in this case also users not using the same client or same server as I am get to see those things.
    - palata 4y ago
      Ok maybe I should take them separately: > Do any IRC clients support inline media upload/viewing, profile pictures, voice/video calls, or replies/threading? These are the things I would consider the core essentials of IM. Any serious platform has all of this plus a whole lot more. Media upload is purely on the client side. If IRCCloud lets you to drag-and-drop an image, uploads it to some server, and then sends the URL, then that's still entirely IRC (I will receive the URL), but IRCCloud is making it easier for you. Same for viewing content: I send a URL, and your IRCCloud will show a preview (image/video), while my client won't. That's purely on the client side. For voice and video calls, IMO I don't want it in my messaging app. I can use my browser for that, or a dedicated app. And again, share a link to my videoconference over IRC. Replies/threading are a tricky one. I hate the replies in Discord, and I don't really get threads. I see Slack channels where the rule is "answer only in threads", which to me says that they want a forum (like Discourse), not an instant messaging app. > But in this case also users not using the same client or same server as I am get to see those things. Pretty sure that if you use replies or threads in Matrix when talking in an IRC channel, then people on IRC won't see them as replies or threads.

unknownaccount 4y ago

There should be a way to decouple the UX from the program and if people want a Discord “skin” for IRC that looks nearly 1:1 they should be able to have that.

kelnos 4y ago
I don't think that would help. The IRC protocol is missing so many messaging features that platforms like Discord have. Just looking like Discord wouldn't fix that.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  What doesnt it have?
- Jolter 4y ago
  This very initiative (IRC 3) seems to be trying to fix that. At least parts of it.
Gigachad 4y ago
This is lipstick on a pig. I'd be perfectly happy with a client that looks like IRC but has the features of Discord. I'd like to be able to chat on my phone without running an external service that provides a modern HTTP based protocol.
- palata 4y ago
  Not sure I get your point. Say you use IRCCloud on your phone, you don't need anything else, do you?
  - lmm 4y ago
    IRCCloud is fine, but it's more expensive than Discord, the UX is not quite as nice for reasons inherent to the IRC model, and it's not really more open in any substantive sense (my phone will be running the proprietary IRCCloud application that speaks a proprietary IRCCloud protocol). So why would one bother?

ilyt 4y ago

> Why does open protocol usually mean crippled U/X? Open is entirely unrelated to that, but optional features means crippled UI/UX in the long run. Some server won't support it so users can't use it, or some client won't support it so they will see garbage/nothing when others use that feature. XMMP showed that well enough and it seems IRCv3 follows suit.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

LinuxBender 4y ago

FWIW TheLounge [1] and Convos [2] can front-end an IRC server giving it much of the look of a modern client and also chat persistence when using TheLounge in private mode. The trade-off in my opinion is scalability. With a bog standard IRCD I can handle tens of thousands of clients per node. Adding web persistent increases memory usage. [1] - https://github.com/thelounge https://github.com/thelounge https://thelounge.chat/ https://thelounge.chat/ [2] - https://github.com/convos-chat/convos/ https://github.com/convos-chat/convos/ https://convos.chat/ https://convos.chat/