UX Decision: Channel "moderation" or "restrictions"
Status | Decided |
|---|---|
Impact | MEDIUM |
Driver | @Dennis Kittrell (Deactivated) |
Approver |
|
Contributors | @Michael Gamble (Deactivated) |
Informed | @Katie Wiersgalla @Martin Kraft (Deactivated) |
Due date | Jan 24, 2020 |
Outcome | Decided "Moderation" was better inline with UX best practices to avoid the double-negative of unchecking the disable box to turn something on. |
Background
The channel restrictions section of the channel configuration page will be subtracting permissions only (such as create posts, post reactions, etc) and will not be adding permissions. The users have asked for these features in a sense of taking away member/guest access specific to a channel. However in the UX process, it became clear that having “disable” create posts and “disable” reactions with empty check-boxes went against the better judgement of our UX experts when it comes to best practices.
Relevant data
Customers and CSRs were shown the 2 options below and there was no clear winner in regards to which was easier to understand.
Options considered
| Option 1: | Option 2: |
|---|---|---|
Description | Moderation | Restrictions |
Pros and cons | No UX double-negative Simplifies the wording on the page Allows for easier replication of this panel on chat-facing side in future iterations of this panel Does not align exactly with what’s happening in the code or the specific ask from customers | Aligns with what’s happening in the code (permissions are being removed, not added) Aligns more closely with the specific ask from customers (read only channel - enable, disallow post reactions) Goes against standard UX best practices |
Estimated cost | N/A | N/A |
Action items
Outcome
Since we did not have a strong opinion from the customers/user in this case and all stakeholders agree that both versions are understandable for admins, we will rely on the expertise of Mike and our UX team to align with industry best practices.