[Galene] suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[Galene] suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[err404]

Hello all.

in the config file for a group, the user "others" can be set for anonymous users.
theses anonymous users appear with nickname: anon in the web interface.

what did you think if we change the "others" to "anonymous" in the config file?

thanks

[Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> in the config file for a group, the user "others" can be set for
> anonymous users.  theses anonymous users appear with nickname: anon in
> the web interface.

That's not how "others" works: it specifies users that don't have the
right to turn their camera on until they have been given the "present"
permission by the operator (using the command "/present").

There are two ways of setting up a group in Galène:

  - give all users the "present" persmission -- the administrator can then
    silence disruptive users using the "/unpresent" command;
  - give users just the "other" persmission -- the administrator can then
    use the "/present" command to voice a user.

> what did you think if we change the "others" to "anonymous" in the config file?

A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
anonymous user is just one that has an empty username.  This is controlled
by the "allow-anonymous" field.

-- Juliusz

[Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[err404]

On 1/1/21 6:00 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> in the config file for a group, the user "others" can be set for
>> anonymous users.  theses anonymous users appear with nickname: anon in
>> the web interface.
> 
> That's not how "others" works: it specifies users that don't have the
> right to turn their camera on until they have been given the "present"
> permission by the operator (using the command "/present").
> 
> There are two ways of setting up a group in Galène:
> 
>    - give all users the "present" persmission -- the administrator can then
>      silence disruptive users using the "/unpresent" command;
>    - give users just the "other" persmission -- the administrator can then
>      use the "/present" command to voice a user.
> 
>> what did you think if we change the "others" to "anonymous" in the config file?
> 
> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username.  This is controlled
> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
> 
> -- Juliusz
> 
thanks for your answer.

I activateed the "allow-anonymous" and also the "others" fields, it was confusing for me.
it is more clear now :p

[Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:

> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username.  This is controlled
> by the "allow-anonymous" field.

"muted" ?

[Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

>> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
>> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username.  This is controlled
>> by the "allow-anonymous" field.

> "muted" ?

Too close, it will lead to confusion.  See, it's like "Juliusz" -- too
close to a name in English, people tend to mis-spell it.  On the other
hand, nobody ever mis-spells "Chroboczek".  (Except the administration of
the University of Paris, but they're a completely different category.)

-- Julius*z*

[Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[Gabriel Kerneis]

On Sun, 3 Jan 2021, at 11:51, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
> >> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username.  This is controlled
> >> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
> 
> > "muted" ?

Why muted? Can't an anonymous user speak like any other?

> Too close, it will lead to confusion.  See, it's like "Juliusz" -- too
> close to a name in English, people tend to mis-spell it.  On the other
> hand, nobody ever mis-spells "Chroboczek".  (Except the administration of
> the University of Paris, but they're a completely different category.)

I have a hard time understanding the value proposition here, if users can pick arbitrary pseudonyms anyway. In the chat in particular, having  distinct usernames to distinguish who is speaking (albeit anonymously) seems like a feature to me. What about not allowing empty usernames, but generating (distinct) pseudonyms automatically if left empty?

Jitsi uses "a jitsi user" (maybe with an added counter #1), which I don't like very much. Google uses animals (at least for user icons), which reminds me of Ubuntu codenames.

Gabriel

[Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

>>> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
>>> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username.  This is controlled
>>> by the "allow-anonymous" field.

>> "muted" ?

> Why muted? Can't an anonymous user speak like any other?

An anonymous user is a user with no username.

A user in the "other" category is a user who doesn't have the right to
click "Ready" (the UI disables the button, but the server enforces the
limitation).

-- Juliusz