I understand that it may be problematic sometimes but this was very smooth. I didn’t even say anything.
A: what’s your number for the whatsapp group Me: I don’t have whatsapp because of facebook. B: ok, we have to use signal then A: ok
And that was it. Life can be very easy sometimes
Think it was related to the messages being insecure and signal didn’t want people to be confused.
If your using signal your messages should be secure. SMS messages aren’t secure. It may have been clear to you when Signal send an sms or an encrypted message, but they need to cater to everyone.
That just feels like shooting themselves in the foot. Just inform the user SMS isn’t secure. That’s it.
Not being willing to trust the user with the information so they can make a choice is asinine. It’s the same reason why I stopped using Tuta. Complete privacy and security are great but if there’s no option to make things a little more open for the sake of convenience or interconnectivity, I’m just not interested.
Security and privacy shouldn’t be a prison.
You can’t target UX to the average person. It won’t work for most people. You need to target those that struggle with technology the most to make it accessible.
Signals main unique selling point is its security, not its ease of use. If people fall into useing signal in a insecure way, it can be hard to say signal is a secure messaging app. As many people may be using it insecurely.
I think you underestimate how oblivious many users are when it comes to using software.
https://www.howtogeek.com/787957/why-sms-needs-to-die/
SMS is bad, and on the way out. Besides that, I barely noticed when Signal stopped allowing SMS.
I guess in some circles it matters, but seems like most people use messengers nowadays.
I guess what I want now is a client for both protocols that works like the old app. That would cater to me - I don’t remember which person is on which app so I keep ending up on SMS because it has everyone.
