Steps to reproduce:
- Go to the onboarding page at https://fedidb.com/welcome
- Select any subset of the features (e.g. Microblogging only)
- See the next page, e.g.:
This has given preference to the most-used Fediverse microblogging software, Mastodon, and ignored the existence of Friendica, Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, Sharkey, GoToSocial, etc. servers in its list. I don't think this is the best approach. Here are the main advantages and disadvantages I can think of the current approach, as compared to including all software with the selected features in the recommended instance list:
Advantage Counterargument |
Disadvantage |
No need to understand the differences between the pieces of software and choose one out of a set of options, which could discourage new joiners. Including all software with the selected features in the recommended instance list without requiring a selection of software beforehand eliminates this. |
Pretty arbitrary exclusion of servers from the recommended list could prevent joiners from finding the instance that best suits them. |
A short description of the software and its features (here about Mastodon) can be displayed at the top of the list. Harder to refute, but by selecting what they want beforehand (here Microblogging) the joiner already knows what features to expect, and the others mentioned (Content Warnings, Accessibility features) are quite technical and difficult to summarise, and would likely have been seen by the joiner in an article about Fedi's benefits if they are interested in it. |
Suggestion of one piece of software only could lead to confusion that conflates the Fediverse with one piece of software, e.g. Mastodon, leads people to criticise the Fediverse based solely on Mastodon's featureset, or leads people to default to joining the Fediverse via Mastodon's large and most centralised servers, reducing the advantages of decentralisation. |
If one of the instances in the list has reached its user limit, and the joiner then tries the next in the list, it will be running the same software so have the same/a similar UI. Before account creation, all Fedi instances will have a similar enough UI with a clear Sign Up button, since they must be designed well to encourage adoption. |
Reduced diversity of software in the Fediverse or a monopolisation by one piece of software could lead to standards and Fediverse enhancement proposal protocol being forgotten by integrating apps and ActivityPub usage becoming less vendor-independent and less democratic, making ActivityPub extensions and integrations less designed for generalisability between software implementations despite the wishes of the Fediverse software creator, e.g. "Sign in with Mastodon" buttons that don't support Akkoma/Misskey/etc. |
It's not a good idea to suggest Fediverse software with fewer frontend features like GoToSocial, or software with a nicher audience/design like Sharkey, so the most feature-rich software, Mastodon, should be suggested. This will be best proven by a large number of instances using Mastodon, and shouldn't be imposed by this centralised onboarding service. For some things like GoToSocial having a more difficult onboarding mechanism, this should be implemented as an information box next to the instance name in my opinion, rather than appearing to pretend GoToSocial instances don't exist. |
Selection of Mastodon as the "best" Fediverse microblogging platform could lead to arguments about partiality. Perhaps it's based on the platform with the greatest usage with the selected featureset, but even so this should be mentioned and the points above still apply. |
Only software meeting accessibility standards should be shown. Valid, but please be transparent about it on the list, and I believe this includes more platforms than Mastodon. |
|
I love this project and how it makes joining the Fediverse more accessible for many people. I also hope my feedback is helpful and helps improve the spread of the Fediverse so it can be used to connect with more friends and communities with different interests without having to use proprietary centralised services as well, and helps keep Fedi federated. Thanks, dansup and everyone who has contributed to this, Pixelfed, Loops and other Fedi software!
Discussion is very much welcome.
Steps to reproduce:
This has given preference to the most-used Fediverse microblogging software, Mastodon, and ignored the existence of Friendica, Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, Sharkey, GoToSocial, etc. servers in its list. I don't think this is the best approach. Here are the main advantages and disadvantages I can think of the current approach, as compared to including all software with the selected features in the recommended instance list:
AdvantageCounterargumentNo need to understand the differences between the pieces of software and choose one out of a set of options, which could discourage new joiners.Including all software with the selected features in the recommended instance list without requiring a selection of software beforehand eliminates this.A short description of the software and its features (here about Mastodon) can be displayed at the top of the list.Harder to refute, but by selecting what they want beforehand (here Microblogging) the joiner already knows what features to expect, and the others mentioned (Content Warnings, Accessibility features) are quite technical and difficult to summarise, and would likely have been seen by the joiner in an article about Fedi's benefits if they are interested in it.If one of the instances in the list has reached its user limit, and the joiner then tries the next in the list, it will be running the same software so have the same/a similar UI.Before account creation, all Fedi instances will have a similar enough UI with a clear Sign Up button, since they must be designed well to encourage adoption.It's not a good idea to suggest Fediverse software with fewer frontend features like GoToSocial, or software with a nicher audience/design like Sharkey, so the most feature-rich software, Mastodon, should be suggested.This will be best proven by a large number of instances using Mastodon, and shouldn't be imposed by this centralised onboarding service. For some things like GoToSocial having a more difficult onboarding mechanism, this should be implemented as an information box next to the instance name in my opinion, rather than appearing to pretend GoToSocial instances don't exist.Only software meeting accessibility standards should be shown.Valid, but please be transparent about it on the list, and I believe this includes more platforms than Mastodon.I love this project and how it makes joining the Fediverse more accessible for many people. I also hope my feedback is helpful and helps improve the spread of the Fediverse so it can be used to connect with more friends and communities with different interests without having to use proprietary centralised services as well, and helps keep Fedi federated. Thanks, dansup and everyone who has contributed to this, Pixelfed, Loops and other Fedi software!
Discussion is very much welcome.