Jump to content

Concerns about Experiences


BlueXBeta
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1658 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

probably the main concern is that when people are asked to grant permissions they are not always fully informed about why a particular script is asking for permissions

when we do ask for permissions (either standard or experience) then is incumbent on us to make it clear to the person how those permissions will  be used

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't help that an Experience always gets the entire list of Experience permissions even if it will only use one or two, so the dialog box requesting those permissions looks scary and it's a challenge for the Experience creator to justify asking for all those permissions they don't really want in the first place.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

It doesn't help that an Experience always gets the entire list of Experience permissions even if it will only use one or two, so the dialog box requesting those permissions looks scary and it's a challenge for the Experience creator to justify asking for all those permissions they don't really want in the first place.

Scary is debateable, I find it surprising that people get scared by that permission box and don't bat an eye at the permission_debit one :P

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:

I avoid experiences just because I don't like the idea of someone having control over my avatar.  Just that simple for me. 

Oh, that must be extraordinarily inconvenient. No sitting on scripted furniture, no riding teleporters, no attachments at all. Not much of a Second Life, really.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chic Aeon said:

I avoid experiences just because I don't like the idea of someone having control over my avatar.  Just that simple for me. 

It's not possible to permanently revoke permissions for any piece of furniture, huggers, dance balls, elevators, teleporters, whatever. (the script can keep them forever if it wants to) But experience permissions can be revoked easily and anytime.

That kind of irrational behaviour made me think that experiences are completely useless - except you really build an experience game/adventure/whatever with it. Even then you will have to block alot of people. 

But I see the point here. You don't know what could happen and that's the scary thing for many people. (not for me)

You need a list:

- this thing will teleport you when you stand on the platform and its activated
- you will die horribly if you step on a trapdoor
- a hud will be attached to you

If people get to know that in advance they will confirm (or run away crying maybe?) hehe
Problem is - nobody will read that if it fills the whole screen.

So - most probably - experiences are and will be useless with very few exceptions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Oh, that must be extraordinarily inconvenient. No sitting on scripted furniture, no riding teleporters, no attachments at all. Not much of a Second Life, really.

Honestly I haven't found any furniture that I can't sit in (none), no teleporters that  didn't let me teleport and all my attachments work. You must live in a different SL than I do LOL.   

Edited by Chic Aeon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chic Aeon said:

Honestly I haven't found any furniture that I can't sit in (none), no teleporters that  didn't let me teleport and all my attachments work. You must live in a different SL than I do LOL.   

Nope, the "LOL" is on you: all those items take "control over your avatar" in precisely the same way that Experiences do -- you've simply come to accept that this is how SL works. It's fine not to use Experiences if you choose -- despite the fact they are uniquely designed to make it easy to revoke permissions that cannot be readily revoked from other scripted items -- but it's simply delusional to think that this is somehow keeping control of the avatar. To truly do that, you'd have to play every animation manually -- no AOs, no animated furniture -- and only teleport with the Map, otherwise walking or flying to every destination, because otherwise you'll be implicitly granting permissions, giving someone control over your avatar.

The question of this thread is how folks came to possess exactly this delusion.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

Honestly I haven't found any furniture that I can't sit in (none), no teleporters that  didn't let me teleport and all my attachments work. You must live in a different SL than I do LOL.   

EDIT: Oops, I haven't seen that Quie answered in the meantime. Too late to delete...

I think what Qie wanted to communicate to you is that any talented and ill-intending scripter can do almost all the same things to you via furniture or teleporters as he/she can with experiences. So it is not very reasonable to be afraid of experiences if you are not afraid of furniture...  😉

Edited by Estelle Pienaar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's basically discomfort with the unknown.  I get it.  As Qie is suggesting, though, Experiences are no more threatening than all the other scripting tools that ask your permission to do things in SL.  Many permissions are granted automatically, without you even being aware.  Look at the last two columns in this table:

a09ee3da7c919472775b1ab1bd49c1d1.png

Notice how many of those permissions are granted implicitly as soon as you sit own a scripted object or attach it.  We all know that pranksters or griefers can take advantage by planting scripts that make you do a chicken dance or point your camera at the sky, yet it doesn't happen often enough to many of us to be a game-changer.  For a lot of SL residents, though, Experiences are still a black box, so they don't know exactly what they are agreeing to let a script do.  Paradoxically, the mandatory dialog box that opens when you are invited to join an Experience not only gives you that information but also scares a lot of people.  The same thing happens when people read the mandatory fine print about side effects on pill bottles and cigarette packages and start feeling uneasy (OK, maybe not cigarette packages.  Smokers typically ignore those warnings.) 

I don't know what the immediate solution is. Linden Lab has made it relatively difficult for scripters to abuse Experiences. You need to be a Premium member, which means that you are more easily tracked than a throwaway Basic account holder.  The system does display that opt in dialog box for all Experiences except the special ones that only the Lab itself uses, so you at least know that you are being asked something, which is more than you know about a lot of permissions (see above).

Aside from the most obvious things that residents are aware of, like forced teleport and auto-attaching HUDs, Experiences are incredibly useful for "under the hood" functions.  Key Value Pairs (KVP) have freed us from needing to maintain large systems outside of SL for record keeping at in-world shops and in games, for managing automatic product updates, for storing all sorts of parameters that tell objects how to move and change textures, and hundreds of other tasks.  These are largely invisible to residents, but they account for many of the conveniences that residents have become used to over the past few years.  Linden Lab is still by far the largest user of KVP -- think of the house control systems in Horizons and Linden Homes, or the game HUDs in Linden Realms and Paleoquest -- but they are being incorporated into private systems across SL.  KVP does not require a resident's permission to save information -- vendor systems, for example, don't do anything that requires the permissions listed above -- but many scripts that ask for PERMISSION_ATTACH or PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION implicitly are doing their most important work with KVP.  

The fact remains that many SL residents are still wary of Experiences, just as many people are cautious about using Facebook (and for good reason).  I can't blame them for being risk-averse, although I have no reservations myself. If Experiences follow the same pattern of acceptance that innovations generally do, residents will worry less as time goes on. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chic, as has been mentioned already by others here. Experience permissions provide more control for residents than standard permissions do.  Users can revoke Experience permissions which they can't do with standard permissions

 

i agree with Qie also.  That our scripts should be able to request only those Experience permissions that the script needs. And on the dialog when asked for these (because not previously granted), the resident is informed that they can revoke the permissions at any time by leaving the Experience. Put this info where people will see it

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mollymews said:

i agree with Qie also.  That our scripts should be able to request only those Experience permissions that the script needs. And on the dialog when asked for these (because not previously granted), the resident is informed that they can revoke the permissions at any time by leaving the Experience. Put this info where people will see it

I don't think so. That will make no sense since there will still be a few permissions lined up.

So it makes no difference for the irrational paranoid ones. 😋

Another point is that there can be 100s of scripts in multiple parcels using that experience. You want to collect all that permissions? Really?
Oh, and every day a new script can be added - which means you need to give experience permissions over and over again.
So - forget it - it's not the way permissions are implemented.

Edited by Nova Convair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nova, I kinda get what you mean.  But i am from the school of only ask for what is needed

in my own case with my own Experience scripts. I don't ever include camera manipulation in my Experience. Why would I request from my users a permission that is never needed

i get what you mean about 100s of scripts and how this would mean that every person in an Experience would need to to have Permissions granted flags against their name for each Experience

a way to resolve this could be that only permissions set at the Experience level can be requested by a script. My scripts can then only request these permissions and an error is raised when my script requests a permission which has not been set as requestable by me (as the Experience owner)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then what happens the day you decide to use that permission you didn't use before? When someone in the experience who did not grant that permission tries to use a script that requires it?

Do they get an accept popup? What if they refuse? Do they get to stay in the experience or do they get kicked out?

Experience permissions are granted/revoked in a few clicks and at any time, unlike regular permissions, they are safer that regular permissions if anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

And then what happens the day you decide to use that permission you didn't use before? When someone in the experience who did not grant that permission tries to use a script that requires it?

Do they get an accept popup? What if they refuse? Do they get to stay in the experience or do they get kicked out?

there is this yes

thinking about it, there is no way around having to record granted permissions against each agent's name/key in the Experience

if so then when a script requests a permission which the agent hasn't previously granted then the agent would have to get a system dialog  requesting them to grant the permission.  If they don't accept then they can still stay in the Experience as a member. Just that they can't participate in that script. Same as when normal permissions are denied to a script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, revising permissions is a pain, as we well know from Android's evolution over the years. (Probably iOS has had the same problem; there are some Apple devices lying around the place but I avoid them.) If Experience permissions were to be complicated so we could add new permissions after some other set were granted, I'd be fine with having to re-request permissions all over again -- basically revoking all already-granted permissions for that Experience. It could be more granular -- heaven knows the Android dynamic permissions have gone through multiple steps of refinement -- but that seems overkill for the non-risk Experiences pose.

It would really be all for appearances anyway. There's just no getting around how intimidating that whole long list of permissions appears, even though it's quite true that it's trivial to revoke all those Experience permissions making them "safer" than other, often implicitly-granted permissions. But appearances make all the difference to adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you mean Molly. A small experience that requests one permission for example. Only needed for the few cases where the present permission system doesnt work.

One point I see is: object 1 needs permission A and object 2 needs permission B - You are aware that both objects need to ask for permissions A+B although they dont need both? That's the 1st step to get more permissions as you need. Making many small things with taylored permission would require many permission keys. Doesn't look like that's part of LL's plans.

By my opinion it's absolutely not necessary to limit things - I'd like some expansions. But that's like the brexit - people have fixed opinions. 😎

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mollymews said:

If they don't accept then they can still stay in the Experience as a member.

Why should they? people also condition access to the experience location to granting all the permissions required for the experience to run.

Should you be granted entry if you have an outdated set of permissions granted to the experience? The only way i'd see this work is as a general experience-wide checkbox list that the experience owner can change, and requiring more permissions automatically kicks out all participants that have not granted that permission to the experience already, when they hit 'save', or alternatively, offer them to either accept the new requirements or leave the experience.

The experience 'foo' has been updated and requires new permissions: accept/leave experience

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nova Convair said:

One point I see is: object 1 needs permission A and object 2 needs permission B - You are aware that both objects need to ask for permissions A+B although they dont need both? That's the 1st step to get more permissions as you need. Making many small things with taylored permission would require many permission keys. Doesn't look like that's part of LL's plans.

i agree that from the Linden pov they made it as an all or nothing thing.  They most likely went thru all the discussion points raised in this thread and went with the simpliest

a odd thing I have noticed is that there is no request permission for llSitOnLink(). Seems Linden treat force sit as an implied permission just by joining the Experience.  Not sure why this would be implied as the agent hasn't sat themselves on the object

it does make me wonder that if this permission is implied (thru joining the Experience) then how might people react to Experiences if all the permissions were implied.  Basically when a person interacts with the experience scripted object, and they are not in the Experience they just get a dialog display requesting them to join the Experience, with a note saying that they can leave the Experience anytime they want

 

ps edit: I think what I am looking for from Linden is what Qie mentions. How do we make it so that more people will join an Experience more readily. The current dialog message can be a bit overwhelming for some people, which can make them nervous. Unnecessarily so I think

Edited by Mollymews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2019 at 4:01 AM, Mollymews said:

a odd thing I have noticed is that there is no request permission for llSitOnLink(). Seems Linden treat force sit as an implied permission just by joining the Experience.  Not sure why this would be implied as the agent hasn't sat themselves on the object

Originally there was no force sit function with experiences. It was only added several months later by the Lab. They probably just haven't updated the permissions dialogue...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1658 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...