Big Tech Wants You Trapped. The Open Web Sets You Free
Big Tech designed their platforms to keep you trapped. YouTube, X, Instagram, and TikTok aren't neutral spaces. They're businesses built on capturing your attention and data. Their algorithms, notification systems, and content policies all serve one purpose: keeping you engaged on their terms. And ...
You're viewing a single thread.
The major platforms are convenient.
But the open web offers something better: genuine ownership, community governance, and independence.
This has a kind of underlying connotation that the open web can't be convenient. This is not true.
It is true that lots of platforms on the fediverse (Lemmy included) don't have the best user experience and user journey flow. But that's not how it has to be. We don't have to accept that as a given.
It's the same problem that Linux faces, where UX issues aren't prioritised because the user base is technical enough to deal with the bullshit. We can't let the same thing occur to the fediverse.
But that's the problem though, devs are notoriously bad at UX, and people good at UX don't seem to care as much about FOSS and the open web. At least that's my experience.
So we need people to speak out so devs can fix these little paper cuts in UX
people good at UX don’t seem to care as much about FOSS and the open web
I'm not sure this is true - at least I have an alternative explanation.
People who do the UX design and all that are rarely invited into the process. Open source projects often look for "maintainers" but this almost exclusively means "developers".
There's documentation and contributing guidelines for developers. Where is the same material for product managers or designers?
We don't get product managers and designers in FOSS because they've never been invited.
What do you mean by "invite"? What would that look like?
My perspective of designers and product managers is that they like to own projects. FOSS generally works based on merit, where you first contribute and members of the project decide whether to accept it.
For developers this is easy:
That's how it should work for design as well. Contribute some designs that you think will improve the UX and if they're desirable, someone will take up implementing them. If it's easy (e.g. a new logo), it'll get done right away, and if it's more involved, it'll get done as devs get time.
Project management is trickier because that requires buy-in from the devs. To get there, you need go earn their trust:
If you do a good job, they'll let you do the above more autonomously. But they're not just going to hand over decision-making to a rando off the street, especially since "they" can change day to day.
Developers don't like being told what to do (esp since it's usually a hobby), but they do want the project to be more successful. Designers and product managers are certainly welcome, but the onus is on any contributor to demonstrate the value they bring.
What do you mean by “invite”? What would that look like?
I don't mean a literal invite - I mean that projects are rarely inviting for product managers and designer (let's call them "UX people") and rarely do they encourage those people to contribute.
Let's take a look at Lemmy as an example (and please don't misunderstand, this is not to bash Lemmy specifically, this happens for so many FOSS projects). Let's put ourselves in the shoes of a UX person who wants to contribute to Lemmy. How would I (the imaginary UX person) do that?
Well, on join-lemmy.org there's not really any links to anything to do with contributing but there is a link to "GitHub" in the contact information. As a UX person, I may have a vague idea what git and GitHub is, but obviously that's not a tool that I use. So then I land on the git repository on GitHub. Oh great, there's a "Contributing" section! It says:
Read the following documentation to setup the development environment and start coding
Oh. So that's contributing code and stuff. So that's not me. But okay since there's nothing else, let's try and go to the contributing guidelines anyway. But this just gives a technical overview of the different software components of Lemmy, and then goes into how to setup local development. This is all mumbo-jumbo to me, I know nothing about coding, I am a UX person.
My point is (and again, Lemmy is just an example here), none of these contributing guidelines are helpful unless you are a developer, and the fact that the contributing guidelines only caters to developers makes any UX person feel out of place, as if their expertise is not wanted or needed. This is what I mean when I say it is not very inviting to UX people. It is very inviting to developers though.
That’s how it should work for design as well. Contribute some designs that you think will improve the UX and if they’re desirable, someone will take up implementing them. If it’s easy (e.g. a new logo), it’ll get done right away, and if it’s more involved, it’ll get done as devs get time.
I agree! But how are designers supposed to know where to even start? There are "good first issues", but those are also only for developers. Where's the contributing guidelines for non-developers? You say "Designers and product managers are certainly welcome", but this doesn't look that welcoming to me!
My perspective of designers and product managers is that they like to own projects.
I think this is a bit of a mischaracterization. I don't think a product manager has to "own" the project to help and be valuable to a project.
One project that does this quite well is bevy. See this video from one of the product manager contributors to bevy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PJaiSpbmc
You make an excellent point, and I've never thought about it this way before.
Devs are not newbie friendly at all. We were all noobs at some point and (if we're being honest) remember the excruciating pain it took to become versed. Most people are not going to go through this, so FOSS naturally loses a lot of non-tech talent (including UX).
What I didn't think about is that there really isn't a way for UX people to contribute at all. GitHub Issues, at most, allows for people to make feature-requests - but beyond that it's just not viable.
For example, I am a UX designer and would like to contribute or iterate a layout. My demonstration includes several images and a video. First off, where do I do this? I could use GitHub Issues, but this is an extremely painful process that is likely far removed from my normal workflow. I could use YouTube, and then link on GitHub issues - but then I have to jump through several annoying hoops for a still sub-optimal workflow.
Git itself also has worked very poorly with binary files (png jpg mp3 wav...) until the recent advent of git-lfs. Binary iteration using base git is just a non-starter.
I am shocked to say it, but I cannot think of any development UI that is actually decent for non-tech people. If anyone does FOSS UX, and I am wrong about the tooling, please correct me.
What's your normal workflow?
Our designers use Figma and send us a link so we can see the various user flows, leave comments, etc. It's not very FOSS-friendly though, but the workflow is pretty good.
Here are a few options that I think could work:
What infra do you expect to be there before you jump in? I'm working on a project I'd like to unveil hopefully this year that could really benefit from UX, so I'm genuinely interested in figuring this out.
I am a dev. The example I gave was meant to be a POV, but in hindsight this was not clear. Because of this, I cannot meaningfully answer your question.
This topic still deserves genuine and transparent research. I have no doubt there are people already working on this, but I have not seen any notable results.
[OFF-TOPIC] To be completely frank with you, I've think that our communities (federation and open-source) are too splintered. Not in the sense of head count (this is good) but in terms of duplicating and abandoning work (this is bad). We really need a way to get a community-pulse on what is generally needed/wanted. I am not sure what the solution for this is, but I know there is one.
This topic still deserves genuine and transparent research.
Agreed. I'll try asking our UX people and see what they'd expect/want.
(federation and open-source) are too splintered
I think that's a feature, not a bug, at least in the abstract sense.
For example, I think federation is a terrible solution to the general problem we're trying to solve here. It requires too much hosting costs for everyone to self-host, requires too much trust in the admin to properly horizontally scale, and is inherently complex, which scares people away (and some of that complexity seeps through to the user).
However, a lot of people think it's the bees knees, hence why we have Mastodon and Lemmy. I still think it's poorly designed for scale, so my projects aren't federated, but I certainly appreciate the people working on it in the meantime (I see it as a stopgap), and I do contribute fixes here and there (I was somewhat active in fixing bugs when I came to Lemmy).
We really need a way to get a community-pulse
This is tricky because there is no one community. It's better managed as separate communities instead of one large FOSS community.
So maybe projects just need a better way to gather feedback from users other than issue trackers. Projects really should do more polls.
Thanks for the video, it was great!
What frustrated me, though, was that she joined Bevy by keeping at it and going out of her way to prove her worth (i.e. the way devs get into projects), but then suggests devs go out of their way instead to attract project managers (and designers, presumably). That's not very fun to hear, but I guess that's the way it is.
there is a link to “GitHub” in the contact information.
There's also a link to Matrix, which I'm guessing is the preferred way to jump in and ask questions about how to contribute.
In general, I recommend coming with the intention of being assigned work ("I'm a UX designer and I'd love to help mock up stuff"), but also with ideas on how to improve what's there (e.g. "I found
<X>
frustrating and would love to show some mockups on how to improve it"). That's the ideal scenario IMO, because it offers to reduce work of existing maintainers without asking for anything in return.However, that's apparently not happening.
Where’s the contributing guidelines for non-developers?
Where would you naturally look for this? With developers it's easy, you look for "CONTRIBUTING.md" or similar in the repo, as well as hints from templates in issues and PRs. Some will have extensive style guides and whatnot, but most are pretty bare bones.
Should this go on the main website? Somewhere at the start of the technical docs? In the repo in a special place linked from the root?
What about tooling? Should projects set up something like penpot (found after a search for FOSS Figma)? Or are designers okay with images on a wiki or something? Is it reasonable to ask them to submit a GitHub issue and engage that way (they could link to something else)?
I'm genuinely interested here because I'm hopefully going to launch a FOSS project this year, and I would like to facilitate that type of discussion, I just don't know how to do that effectively. To me, linking a chat and the repo is enough, but maybe it's not.
There’s also a link to Matrix, which I’m guessing is the preferred way to jump in and ask questions about how to contribute.
Yes but asking directly instead of consuming already-written guidelines is a much higher psychological hill to climb and doesn't feel welcoming. You need to be very passionate to go to Matrix. Also, frankly speaking, UX people are very unlikely to have a user on Matrix or even know what it is or how it works. Developers on the other hand can easily figure this out. You need to be mindful of tech literacy when you're trying to cater to UX people - they won't know anything about Matrix probably.
In general, I recommend coming with the intention of being assigned work
I don't think that's bad, but for developers this is very easy with all the guidelines and the "good first issues" and all that. For UX people, none of these resources exist.
Where would you naturally look for this? With developers it’s easy, you look for “CONTRIBUTING.md” or similar in the repo, as well as hints from templates in issues and PRs. Some will have extensive style guides and whatnot, but most are pretty bare bones.
Should this go on the main website? Somewhere at the start of the technical docs? In the repo in a special place linked from the root?
At the very least this could be in the contributing guidelines on GitHub, but I think having it on the main website (a place much more familiar and friendly to non-technical people) is much better.
What about tooling? Should projects set up something like penpot (found after a search for FOSS Figma)? Or are designers okay with images on a wiki or something? Is it reasonable to ask them to submit a GitHub issue and engage that way (they could link to something else)?
I don't know, I'm not a UX person. Ask them when they arrive. But I would think they can probably figure out to interact on GitHub issues if directed to do so. Developers intuitively know "Oh I want to contribute so I'll need a GitHub account and then need to go look at issues" but UX people don't know this.
To me, linking a chat and the repo is enough, but maybe it’s not.
I definitely don't think that's enough - UX people probably don't even know what a "repo" is.
This is a frustrating nut to crack, thanks for your patience.
I'll ask our UX people at work what they'd expect. UX and project management are pretty far down the list of considerations when starting/joining a FOSS project, so thanks for your insights.
Agreed, this has always been a major disconnect.
I'll also say that devs are notoriously bad at "being a noob". A lot of software just takes too much investment to get working - those that do not tend to be extremely predatory (i.e Facebook).
Devs need to create dead-simple software that has UX which caters to common actions humans would do.
There's plenty of good, open source UX in FOSS. Have you seen the Gnome family of apps? They look great and are easy to understand.
They're also pretty light on features, and GNOME itself is quite foreign for new users.
Back in the old days, you could register an account without giving your phone number. Nowadays, pretty much all the big social medias won't let you register an account without a number. I guess that's not a big problem for people who don't care about privacy, but for me that's a total deal breaker. This means, that there's a huge barrier to entry.
Yeah but who doesn’t have at least a cell phone these days (unless you’re making many accounts)? They’re useful for 2 factor authentication too.
Pretty much everyone has, but that's not the problem here. What if you don't really want to give them a unique identification number like that? What if you don't want them them to know you that well? What if you're not even planning to use your real name at all.
