About using experiences inworld.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

That sounds sane for PERMISSION_DEBIT, but would you really stand for having to go through MFA every blessed time a script requests PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION, PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION, or most of the other permissions? That would get very annoying very fast.

BTW, just in case others are not aware, an Experience cannot request PERMISSION_DEBIT. For that one, a script has to use the standard llRequestPermissions process, which opens the scary yellow box to be sure that you know what you are doing. 

Well, part of my suggestion was to make it "configurable".  So for instance, if you didn't want someone to "take control" of your avatar while you were "away", etc. you could say "Oh please yes, always ask for extra authentication so I don't come back to find my poor avatar in a dungeon someplace, being abused." (Just an example.)

Understood that Experiences can't request "debit" permission.

My takeway: I had a seemingly sane moment! * happy dance *

[Rolig Loon]

18 minutes ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

I still think giving "some" info as to the usage/purpose of experiences in the dialog might be helpful.

I'm not truly disagreeing.  I'm simply wondering how much difference it's likely to make. 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

On 8/20/2022 at 2:34 AM, Lucia Nightfire said:

My observations over the years tells me the stigma of experiences has been greatly reduced since its offering over 8 years ago.

E.. excuse me?

I didn't want to believe it...

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

E.. excuse me?

I didn't want to believe it...

A little more than 7 years, close enough!

[Lucia Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

E.. excuse me?

I didn't want to believe it...

That was when it went live for all Premium accounts after the closed beta testing period completed.

When I said "offered", I included the period a year prior when they sought beta testing applicants.

IIRC, before the closed beta period, experiences had been available, but only to Lindens/Moles since 2013.

[Seicher Rae]

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I will be careful to think of Seicher first, always, for all future posts.

And make sure I have at least one hard, heavy, throwable object in my bag at all times.

4 hours ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

You KNOW I've got to give it at least a few hours for Seicher to respond with (one of) the right line(s)

Expletive.

Performance anxiety!

Panic!

Quick! A gif!

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Seicher Rae
sigh. imagine 3 gifs here

[Seicher Rae]

These two are @Scylla Rhiadra (they didn't all fit in the comment above )

[Da5id Weatherwax]

And NOW...

you must bring me a shrubbery!

 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

And NOW...

you must bring me a shrubbery!

 

Do you have a herring I could borrow?

[Rowan Amore]

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

I'm sincerely hoping that all of this Pythonesque vituperation is not directed at me?

Sweet, lovable me?

[Rowan Amore]

@Seicher Raestarted it!

[Da5id Weatherwax]

 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

6 hours ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

That was when it went live for all Premium accounts after the closed beta testing period completed.

When I said "offered", I included the period a year prior when they sought beta testing applicants.

IIRC, before the closed beta period, experiences had been available, but only to Lindens/Moles since 2013.

Yeah, I understood what you meant. 😊 It's just crazy how many years has passed since it was first mentioned (I vividly recall explaining how Experiences will work to a friend, while it was being tested), it felt like it was way more recent... like 3 years. I'm too young to be this old.

[Da5id Weatherwax]

There, that was a satisfactory proactive derail of my own thread before its inevitable descent into lolcats, now, wasn't it?

[Love Zhaoying]

Lolcats? Where? Ready!

[Qie Niangao]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:26 PM, Love Zhaoying said:

Well, part of my suggestion was to make it "configurable". 

Pretty sure you meant that the grantor be enabled to configure the set of permissions being granted, but I've also wondered if it might help for the requestor to be able to specify just those permissions it wants to use as part of the Experience.

I wouldn't want to give up the ability of the user to withdraw all permissions from the Experience in a single stroke, but it's rarely necessary for an Experience to use the whole scary long list.

By now we've all probably agreed that AVsitter should be able to teleport us hither and yon, but because the scripts don't do that, the Experience will never do that, so any user angst about granting that permission was wasted.

Potential downside: Besides whatever complexity this would add to the implementation, it also poses a situation where an Experience suddenly needs another permission it never requested, forcing scripts in that Experience to again ask participants for the additional permission(s) next time they do something in an Experience to which they've already agreed.

Regardless, if any changes are made to the Experience permissions request dialog, it really should explain how easy it is to revoke all the requested permissions (unlike any non-Experience permissions the user may have granted, explicitly or implicitly).

[Love Zhaoying]

25 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Pretty sure you meant that the grantor be enabled to configure the set of permissions being granted, but I've also wondered if it might help for the requestor to be able to specify just those permissions it wants to use as part of the Experience.

Yes but my point was to add extra authentication - MFA. For the Grantor to select which special permissions they want extra authentication for. Sorry if somewhere I implied the requestor.

Words are hard. Me talk good one day.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Rolig Loon]

52 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yes but my point was to add extra authentication - MFA. For the Grantor to select which special permissions they want extra authentication for.

That's likely to be confusing for most non-scripters. Imagine, for example that I have scripted a bench that starts a sit animation when you sit on it.  Most SL residents are probably not aware that the script has to ask for PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION as part of that sequence, because permission is granted automatically -- without asking!  -- when you sit on an object like that. 

Now, suppose that I write a slightly more complicated script that will automatically seat you on the bench if you bump into it, and then start the animation.  That requires an Experience. If you have never accepted the Experience, it will ask you to do that.  If you have already accepted it, the Experience will again not ask for PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION, and it will not ask for a permission to seat you, because there is no specific permission to request for that.

So, if LL took your suggestion and asked the resident not simply to accept the Experience but to also use MFA to decide which permission to allow, what does he choose? 

It's not obvious that he has to select PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION because he's never had to grant that permission for any "normal" bench.  And there is nothing to indicate that by accepting the Experience he has automatically granted permission for it to seat him when he bumps into a bench in that area.  As a result, he's gone through the annoying MFA procedure and possibly decided not to let anything start an animation, and he's surprised when he's seated when he bumps into a bench.

That's one extremely simple example of things that are commonly handled in an Experience. Imagine how much more confusing it would be for a resident in an Experience that automatically rezzes a HUD, attaches it, and then manages teleportals with it.

Or imagine all of the things that don't involve any specific permissions at all but may rely on an Experience to keep track of scores on a game's leaderboard, or to grant access to a locked area (like the user's Linden Home, for example).  

Edited August 25, 2022 by Rolig Loon

[Gabriele Graves]

I can only speak for myself because I have no idea how many other people are like me or not.  For that matter, neither does anyone else so there is that.

For me, I would only willingly opt-in to an Experience on the basis that every single time it wanted access permission I get a popup telling me exactly what object wants it, it's location on the region and what the permission it's requesting.  More importantly I want the option to deny each and every access I don't want.

As a nod to Rolig who brings up a great point, I would also want a Sit permission to be added just for Experiences.

On every request I would want the option of "No and don't ask me again" which would be for that type of request only.  The initial Experience permission request dialog would also have the option "Ask me for every access".

I don't care if that sounds confusing, cumbersome or whether someone thinks that breaks immersion.
For me, that is what I would want and it seems simple.

It doesn't stop anyone giving a blanket grant in exactly the same way they do today if they want so there are no real downsides though obviously I expect "confusing and too complex" to be raised as the rather lame excuses.  However, very similar requests to these are present in lots of apps, on our phones, web browsers, etc. and everyone appears to cope just fine with those.

Footnote: Even better would be the above options in conjunction with a temporary one-visit-only opt-in.  Maybe a viewer setting, "Don't make Experiences Permanent".  There wouldn't any need to remember anything about the Experience once I teleport out and so there wouldn't need to be a revoke.  Due to that, there wouldn't be a need to even record that Experience in the list because I am not permanently accepting anything.  I could be OK without this part though, even though it would be very desirable to me to have.

[Innula Zenovka]

4 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I expect "confusing and too complex" to be raised as the rather lame excuses. 

Possibly, but the real objection is that it would necessitate LL's completely re-writing the experiences code since, unlike regular run_time_permissions, experience_permissions aren't granular.   If you accept the experience, then scripts set to that experience automatically have all the relevant permissions.

You're asking for something that might  look similar but under the hood it would be completely different from experience tools.   It would mean LL making a whole new product.

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Possibly, but the real objection is that it would necessitate LL's completely re-writing the experiences code since, unlike regular run_time_permissions, experience_permissions aren't granular.   If you accept the experience, then scripts set to that experience automatically have all the relevant permissions.

You're asking for something that might  look similar but under the hood it would be completely different from experience tools.   It would mean LL making a whole new product.

Perhaps but nothing was ever done perfect the first time and that's no reason not to do better later.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting anything to change.  I give this information about what I would want so that others can understand a different perspective and realise that not everyone just wants dialogs asking permissions just to go away because immersion, less friction, etc.

[Rolig Loon]

4 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

For me, I would only willingly opt-in to an Experience on the basis that every single time it wanted access permission I get a popup telling me exactly what object wants it, it's location on the region and what the permission it's requesting.  More importantly I want the option to deny each and every access I don't want.

That's fine, and I can appreciate the fact that there are people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of Experiences.  I'm not trying to make any guesses or judgments about why anyone might choose to accept or deny an Experience.  My note, in response to Love, was just meant to illustrate that any system that expects you to use MFA to select specific permissions would make SL more cumbersome for the great majority of SL residents.  That's exactly the opposite of what most people have been asking for.  SL is already too complicated for many people.   The same could be said for the system you have just suggested.  LL could certainly do things that way, but it would cause a great inconvenience for most residents -- precisely the direction that LL and most residents are trying to avoid.

[Gabriele Graves]

11 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's fine, and I can appreciate the fact that there are people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of Experiences.  I'm not trying to make any guesses or judgments about why anyone might choose to accept or deny an Experience.  My note, in response to Love, was just meant to illustrate that any system that expects you to use MFA to select specific permissions would make SL more cumbersome for the great majority of SL residents.  That's exactly the opposite of what most people have been asking for.  SL is already too complicated for many people.   The same could be said for the system you have just suggested.  LL could certainly do things that way, but it would cause a great inconvenience for most residents -- precisely the direction that LL and most residents are trying to avoid.

I don't feel uncomfortable with the idea of Experiences at all.  I just don't want to participate on the basis of what is provided.  The whole implementation seems like massive cludge tacked on to get around asking people permissions properly so they can make informed choices and take the single request individually approach.

I think you are over-playing and over-dramatising the effect my "wishlist" would have on anyone.  I disagree that there would be any great inconvenience to anyone  at all.  There would be a couple of extra buttons to have to read and understand, that's all.

So give us some concrete data that backup "what most people have been asking for" outside forums people and Experience creators.  If you don't have it then you don't have the full picture anymore than anyone else.

Like I said above, I'm not expecting this.  Just providing a perspective.  Nobody knows how many people out there would agree with it.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Love Zhaoying]

39 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's likely to be confusing for most non-scripters. Imagine, for example that I have scripted a bench that starts a sit animation when you sit on it.  Most SL residents are probably not aware that the script has to ask for PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION as part of that sequence, because permission is granted automatically -- without asking!  -- when you sit on an object like that. 

Now, suppose that I write a slightly more complicated script that will automatically seat you on the bench if you bump into it, and then start the animation.  That requires an Experience. If you have never accepted the Experience, it will ask you to do that.  If you have already accepted it, the Experience will again not ask for PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION, and it will not ask for a permission to seat you, because there is no specific permission to request for that.

So, if LL took your suggestion and asked the resident not simply to accept the Experience but to also use MFA to decide which permission to allow, what does he choose? 

It's not obvious that he has to select PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION because he's never had to grant that permission for any "normal" bench.  And there is nothing to indicate that by accepting the Experience he has automatically granted permission for it to seat him when he bumps into a bench in that area.  As a result, he's gone through the annoying MFA procedure and possibly decided not to let anything start an animation, and he's surprised when he's seated when he bumps into a bench.

That's one extremely simple example of things that are commonly handled in an Experience. Imagine how much more confusing it would be for a resident in an Experience that automatically rezzes a HUD, attaches it, and then manages teleportals with it.

Or imagine all of the things that don't involve any specific permissions at all but may rely on an Experience to keep track of scores on a game's leaderboard, or to grant access to a locked area (like the user's Linden Home, for example).  

Something like:

  Dear Resident, 

  This feature allows you to select which Experience (and/or other non-Experience) features you want extra, extra confirmation for:

     Select this Option for extra authentication- When an object asks for permissions (for the FIRST time) to "Animate" you

     Select this Option for extra authentication- When an object asks for permissions (EVERY time) to "Take or Give L$"

     Select this Option for extra authentication- When an object asks for permissions (for the FIRST time) to "Teleport" you

etc. 

Yeah, the current dialogs doth verily sucketh righteously.