Warning 'Unauthorized to View' is false (when visibility does not require authority)

[Graham Perrin]

Example, <http://n2.nabble.com/How-to-Join-the-forum-f1507222.html> at the time of writing:

* probably does allow view
* certainly does not allow unauthorised post.

<http://n2.nabble.com/restricted/n1507222.html> presents a misleading warning:

> Unauthorized to View

> only authorized users can view or post messages here

A better form of warning might be:

> Authorised users only

> To proceed in this area: please apply to join, or contact the owner of the forum.

[Graham Perrin]

<http://n2.nabble.com/General-Discussions-f1316813.html> is a clearer example from the same area.

All three topics are in view, and a click on each topic allows me to view discussion in its entirety.

When I click to post, I am warned that for the area I viewed I can not view.

[Hugo <Nabble>]

Thanks for the suggestion, it makes sense. Click here to see how it will look after the next release.

Regards,
Hugo Teixeira
Nabble.com

[Graham Perrin]

Any invitation to …join… may be viewed as a duplicate, triplicate or greater multiple of a previous action — particularly if the access relates to a list archive. Consider a workflow from an end-user perspective:

1. first application form: to join a list
2. receive via e-mail a link to confirm the application
3. confirm your application
4. discover, or gain direction to, Nabble
5. second application form: register to use Nabble
6. receive via e-mail a link to confirm the registration
7. discover, or gain direction to, a Nabble forum (archive of the list) that is visible to the public
8. click to post
9. third application form: Apply to Join (a private forum).

At that step 9 the user may wonder (with justification) how many more application forms lie ahead.

I understand the logic, and users who are familiar with Nabble may understand the logic, but a newcomer may find the third application form unexpected.

In lieu of Apply to Join
maybe, Request access.

Hmm. Still not quite right. From the perspective of a confused user, the form is missing something.

More important than the title (of the page) and heading (of the form), there should be:

• an unmistakable reassurance that this form is not leading to a requirement for a third set of credentials.

How to word that reassurance? Right now, I'm not sure. But you get the idea :)

Best,
Graham

[Hugo <Nabble>]

I think "Request Access" is better and good enough.
So I would just change the UI to be like this:



What do you think?
Do you still think it is confusing or not enough?

[Graham Perrin]

Not quite enough :)

• lose the word join
• (the connotations, to be avoided, are: sign up and passwords).

Borrowing from How to join members?, adding bold face to the aspect that was not clear:

Posts are received from authorised users only. Your first click to post in a restricted forum will present to you an invitation to join. When the invitation appears, click Send Request; your request is automatically sent to forum owners for approval.

My only criticism (minor) of naming a single forum owner is:

• people requesting access may know that the owner is unavailable (on holiday, on sick leave, etc.).

By making the form more generic, you may reduce the risk of applicants scratching their heads when a single named owner is known to be absent.

Rather than name a single person, you might link to the owners area (example: <http://n2.nabble.com/forum/People.jtp?forum=1&filter=owners>).

There's probably an argument that offering a person's name makes the routine less impersonal.

OTOH I'm preparing to announce a co-owned forum to a few hundred people, most if not all of whom will find themselves at a Request access form, and amongst the concerns already voiced by colleagues is that the system(s) should not depend upon any one individual.

Thanks again for consideration. Much appreciated.

Graham

[Hugo <Nabble>]

What about this: unauth3.png?
Note there is no link to the people page of the private forum because the people page is private. Instead, we can simply list the owners.

Is that better?

[Graham Perrin]

␡ for approval (you will be notified by e-mail if your request is accepted).

⁁ for approval. If approved, you will be notified by e-mail.

␡ join this private forum

⁁ access this private forum

Hugo <Nabble> wrote

Note there is no link to the people page of the private forum because the people page is private. Instead, we can simply list the owners.

Is that better?

The privacy makes sense.

Listing the co-owners is a very nice touch :)

I tend to use Nabble in fairly traditional ways so it may be worth inviting opinion from others who find more exotic uses.

Thanks again
Graham

[Hugo <Nabble>]

Thanks for the suggestion. This will be available after the next release, which should happen soon. We can improve the wording when we find other cases.

Regards,
Hugo Teixeira
Nabble.com

[Graham Perrin]

Great, thanks.

I'll treat this as resolved, a point of reference.

Regards
Graham