Let’s face it. The general public won’t care what the name or acronym is. Only the tech people will care.
The definition requires hierarchical
It is an inappropriate word to use for this system.
It also carries too much baggage from the internet. Control, ownership, google and so on
WHY do you want to use a word that does not mean what SAFE is doing here? Why not use real correct words, like “name”
To give an example of the silliness of Domains for a simple naming system
The country has a water domains for the supply of the country’s water and the government department rules over the various regional water commissions which rule over the water boards in each county.
Then we introduce a wonderful system where each house collects its own water and extracts all the water it needs from the atmosphere. Would you call that water domains or the water board or water commissions or water department. No of course you would not. Its just house water.
So why take a hierarchical domain control system and use it for calling a simple NAME system that has no hierarchical anything or no control systems build in
Just renew your thinking and do away with inappropriate words for calling this system, do not fall into the trap of trying to redefine wards that have definite definitions already. It will cause confusion at best and at worse people using it the wrong way and getting into trouble trying to work out why it does not work like domains, which translates into users getting al sorts of problems because the web page designers are using it wrong
I didn’t deny this.
Why not use real correct words, like “name”
This or something similar is my current favourite.
Have your read and understood what I’ve written? Happy to clarify if it isn’t clear.
Just renew your thinking and do away with inappropriate words for calling this system, do not fall into the trap of trying to redefine wards that have definite definitions already.
I like you @rob but this doesn’t come across well, nor quite a lot of what you’ve written on this topic. Just my opinion.
Well you did say in the quote I quoted it did not require.
The rest of my post was not directed at you personally but @joshuef who seemed to still want it.
I apologise for my misreading of your post.
No probs @rob. I also appreciate the hours and thought you put into all these discussions.
Domain still seems reasonable to me, though I wouldn’t say it’s my preference. (Indeed, I’m quite pro
<something> name, as per the RFC.)
What I’m saying is though, I don’t agree with your discounting of domain as I pointed out above. And if you are looking for further hierarchy (which in my reading of the definition isn’t needed), then I’d suggest the network is the authority you seek. If it gives it you, it’s yours. And similarly, were there to be a network fork and an agreed upon change (at some grand and very improbable scale). It could be taken away from you.
But anywho, I’m not massively pro domain, but I do think it is as valid as many other suggestions here.
These are just a few.
Domain name is just totally inappropriate as this describes a different system to what is being implemented here and carries all the wrong baggage which is contrary to safe’s fundamentals
- that is singular and not the way Domains work. Domains is a multi-tiered control system and a domain denotes your control
- Its not authority, its simply whether someone else has already used that name. This is not authority any more than people picking up pieces of paper with names on them from the floor.
@joshuef, what if I were to call you Overlord Joshuef? Or Controller Joshuef? I am pretty sure you would say that its not appropriate and sends the wrong signals as to who you are. Its the same as using Domain names. It is the wrong signal, wrong definition and is not what safenetwork names are all about.
SNNS : Safe Network Name Service
SNNS : Safe Network Name System
Has all the words we like and It’s even a palindrome. I like ‘service’ better than ‘system’.
NRS is the clear winner at the moment for the the name of the Name Resolution System. It just flows from the tongue
And we can call a name that is used a “safenetwork name”
What is your safenetwork name OR
What is your name on the safenetwork
What name are you using for mail on the safenetwork
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m pro
<something> name too, it’s just what that
Not to make this debate circle continuously, but I still think from an end user POV, domain name will be the most understandable and usable descriptor.
It may seem, from the bald historic technical internet etymology, to be the incorrect descriptor, but that’s not how language works. It’s fluid and ever-changing, and is defined by the parties using it, not by a central authority (sorry, couldn’t help that ). I mean, December ain’t the tenth month folks.
But I do think it’ll fit the understanding of
domain name by existing definition.
“A domain name is an identification string that defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority or control within the Internet.”
I think this is how users will perceive it. By registering a name, it, and all its paths and subnames will come under my administrative control. I will own it, and be in charge of what data it points to. I’ll be able to allow people access, and even transfer ownership in the future too. It’ll be part of my dominion. On the old web, I used to have to buy/rent/be granted access—but on SAFE, I can own my own little space, my domain, and I can use it for what I want, when I want.
Incidentally, I think if we do end up having two separate namespaces for
safe: I think perhaps the language might become a touch easier, and maybe
public name becomes more workable for the
safe: side of things. Although I think we are still on early days for that decision, and it definitely shouldn’t be based on this discussion of terminology!
NRS would work as the system, and it leaves scope for the descriptor to be added depending on the context.
(didn’t you want to do a quick survey? My immediate super quick survey lead to 3/3 (+me) intuitively making assumptions that don’t make any sense on safe… I would have expected you might share your findings too if people around you did react in a different way and this would support the domain stuff… )
I’m saying it’s relatively easy to test, and we can do that testing; probably built in around the time we’ll be doing user testing on related user stories.
But right now I’ve got quite a lot on… will get to it though. Let’s just not jump into any name without some testing though.
I agree with everything you say Jim except that I’m not sure about the level of recognition among ordinary people. Also, the two (Safe v clearweb domain) may not be equivalent, and the quote below raises a bigger question that makes it even harder to decide.
I don’t have any objection to domain name if it does the job we want - which I agree is ease of understanding and use by ordinary people. Those who are already technical will adapt more easily, so my priority here is the masses who will be discouraged by relatively tiny barriers, especially the technophobe.
I guess this is a leak from internal discussions? Can we have a topic that describes the logic, because it seems an unnecessary source of UX complexity and confusion, especially considering the priorities I’ve just put forward.
Why didn’t you simply ask your mum instead of arguing pro Domain and claiming that the average person would understand it without anything to support this…
Anyway - sorry - I didn’t want to sound too frustrated - but it’s hard for me to understand some attitudes/ways of doing things I’m glad you do what you do and hope in the end this discussion will result in a state with which everyone can live
Yeah, that’s why it needs to be tested. BTW I’m happy to be wrong, there is actually something quite satisfying as a UX designer as seeing you ideas proved wrong, by watching real people get to grips with them! As one, it means you are doing your job properly, and two, it usually leads you to a better more usable solution.
So, let’s keep an open mind, and not jump into any solution because of personal preference, or because we are squeamish about an acronym etc.
Yeah, there has been some internal discussions on this, and it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but defo needs its own separate discussion.
Because just asking your mum isn’t the way to get good reliable evidence. It might be a starting point in creating a design hypothesis, which could then be evaluated, which is what I was proposing.
(Incidentally, I did ask a few family members at the start of my thinking about this, and got quite different answers from your similar straw-poll).
I’ve not claimed I had evidence to support this, I’ve said I suspected it would be the case, and that it should be tested; just like any other term should be tested if we want to have confidence it is the right thing to be doing.
You are so last decade. No one now says domain, but they say web site. Exception being the 5% of geeks. 95% are not that use the internet now
That is slang definition
But note it still states clearly Authority or control which is NOT what SAFE is implementing. NRS is not a control system over ownership of the internet
I guess some are so set in their ways that everying with a name is a “domain name” and cannot see the forrest for the one tree they keep looking at. Sorry but this is not very smart thinking to keep on with domain names as a potential naimg system for safe which is actually ANTI-domains.
Well - depending on how you asked this then should be a nice indicator
? ! ? ! I really hope that this is not becoming an academic task… I am glad that the current roadmap on the website simply appeared at some point… The last (planned) Roadmap before that got a Roadmap of its own, was mentioned weekly in the updates and after months was sentenced to death because of it being too energy/time consuming to create … All we wanted was an indicator where we are…
And with the naming all I want is a non misleading name - I don’t care what name… Just not misleading and simple… (+a fun acronym or palindrome would be optional) - and I don’t want a democratic process for this and it should not consume more than 1 hour of thinking time off maidsafe the company…
So strategy is: choose whatever you want > someone else think it’s important enough to raise his voice > that one needs to suggest a different option (never the same again) > until nobody has objections anymore
Call things for what they are.
The names on safenetwork are safenetwork names. So simple. And its a Name resolution System or other appropriate.
Control systems are not appropriate
In most contexts they’ll probably say website, yeah. Or web address.
But… what if I want to create a website, and host it somewhere, and create an address for it? What might I need? How might I describe the thing that I need? What might I call that thing that would make up the address of the site I’m making, and also be used to send messages to me, and as an email, and might be used to for a username etc?
What if I’m confronted with the requirement to create this entity when I’m opening a SAFE account, how might it be described to me in a way that I can relate to it, and understand all the ways that I can and might need to use it on the network?
This is the task of language for UX.
If there is a term that does this well, and has the lowest friction, and also happily sits well with the technical underpinnings of the network, then splendid! But we won’t find out which it is by just arguing about it on a dev forum.