Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlissner | Hacker News Reader

They just have to tell you if a message isn't received after a day or two. This is already exposed via the check marks, so it's just something they have to amplify with a notification.

Or when you start writing a message to somebody, if they haven't read the last couple messages signal could make that obvious. Etc. Lots of easy fixes.

View on HN

Those both rely on the assumption that being offline for a little while = app uninstalled. Not always so.

They can just say the message wasn't received. They don't have to say it was uninstalled. Just loudly tell me things aren't working like I expected. That's all this takes.

You could just check for yourself if it's important. I do.

There are multiple anecdotes in this thread, on HN, that people missed that. All GP is asking for is better UX making it more obvious, because being able to check is something other than knowing to check and how to check.

It's the exact same UX as SMS, Telegram, WhatsApp Facebook and (partially) Twitter...

I don't see why that matters? (Especially given that Signal has far fewer users and presumably higher attrition than those other platforms.) If things can be better, than it would be great if they were.

This is bad design. Why excuse bad design? When I send a text message and it doesn't arrive, my messaging app lets me know. With Signal, this is a step backward.

> When I send a text message and it doesn't arrive, my messaging app lets me know

Signal does let you know, it never gets the delivered mark.

That's not letting me know, that's something I have to check.

I meant I check in Signal. It does indicate whether it's received or not and whether it's read or not.

You only know if your SMS fails to send, not if the receiving party has deleted their messaging app, broken their phone, or changed number.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com