You can make your own alternatives, that’s the difference. If you think the mods/admins of those comms/instances aren’t doing well, then you could do better yourself. That’s the freedom that the fediverse gives you. You could not do the same on Reddit.
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.
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
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.
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.
On the other hand, there’s probably also almost no reason to upvote it. OP will see it, there’s no need for it to be the top comment.
Very nice thoughts! I think you’re right that organically convincing people IRL is most effective, but getting people over online from Reddit and Facebook is also a part of the solution I think. But definitely not the whole solution.
Tbf the flat buttonless style makes them really easy to clean.
Tuta takes like 48 hours to respons, slower than Proton who takes about 12-24 hours, but as long as the response is under 1 week, its fine by me.
Are you talking about support request response time here? Or what response time?
I may have used Facebook as a bit of a provocative example here… But even on Facebook, there are certain groups that could enjoy the fediverse.
The fediverse should be for everyone.
Bluesky is not truly decentralized, in the same way that Mastodon is. Bluesky is effectively centralized and is still controlled by an american corporation and could in principle be bought in the same way that Twitter was. Lastly, Bluesky made their own protocol instead of using the already-standard ActivityPub protocol. That’s why a lot of people are skeptical and recommend Mastodon instead.
100% fair! Not everyone can muster the will to wander into that hellhole. Some brave few might try :)
When a fediverse app wins, the whole fediverse wins. A rising tide lifts all ships or however it goes.
Well here’s another reply from a human. I saw your post, you’re not alone.
Where are you from? I didn’t realize anyone outside Denmark or maybe some nordic countries made these. :)