Comment by solarkraft | Hacker News Reader

Comment by solarkraft | Hacker News Reader

Seeing such issues with Matrix and other open, common-good projects, I get the feeling like they just aren’t architected for good everyday-user UX.

Matrix is making real efforts to change this with Matrix 2.0, but still seems to suffer from design debt in many places.

I think this is partially due to the people they attract who largely work on the projects for free: Tinkerers who care about some form of technical elegance for the fun of it. I’ve had a few conversations around FOSS, including Matrix, at this point, and a not-too-uncommon response to my relayed criticisms was “then the user is wrong”.

I can’t tell them what to do. I could tell them what to do if they want adoption by normal people, but many don’t seem to be interested in that and you really can’t argue with that.

If adoption by normal people is a project goal, you have to seriously engineer for that. As much (partially fair) criticism as Gnome gets, they managed to build a desktop package that can seriously be used by normal people in the real world.

Disclaimer: I work on the project.

Matrix started out with its early DNA in focusing on the problem of how to create a decentralised e2ee multi-client messenger.

Getting that right took a lot of time and effort, which initially came at the expense of UX.

Elsewhere in the comments, it is clear that there are not many (any?) similar projects out there that solve the same problem, especially to the level of maturity where it is trusted by governments and civil institutions around the world.

So the effort was worth it, and we have the proof points to show that Matrix solves a real problem. Now we need to continue to work hard to create a UX that matches (perhaps exceeds?) the quality of the proprietary, centralised and non e2ee messaging apps that set the UX standards users have come to expect.

This needs to happen both at the protocol level and in the client and server implementations. For me personally, this means Synapse and the Element clients, but we have many quality implementations in the wild.

Matrix 2.0, mentioned above, is part of this initiative, though there is a lot of additional work in progress to both improve existing features (like Spaces and Threads) and add expected features, such as user status.

The post calls out running on Dendrite, which, as a project not under active development, contributes to some of the problems. However, I would not want that to be an excuse, because there is legitimate feedback in the post overall.

If someone reading this is new to the project and wants to host their own server, I'd recommend checking out [ESS Community](https://github.com/element-hq/ess-helm) - though other distributions exist.

Thanks everyone for flying Matrix and sharing your experiences (good and bad), we're getting there.

Thank you for your work on Matrix. I believe that the world needs an interoperable messaging standard just like we have E-Mail, which is why I am so interested in Matrix becoming something I can tell people to use with a good conscience.

I am happy that Matrix has found a place in government organizations. For many individual users, Matrix currently solves no problem because they simply can not use it. I hope this will continue to change, I am cheering for you.

What you are writing may be true but what the article is about shows the exact opposite of "some form of technical elegance". This thing seems to be bug-ridden for feature areas off the mainstream usage path.

What helps against this are a rigorous design, testing, perhaps some formal methods sprinkled in (because distributed systems are really hard). That's what a tinkerer community could do that does not have an investor with strict timelines and profit requirements breathing down their neck. But the community apparently does not. At the least they should mark features as experimental that clearly have such fundamental issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com