-
@jdaviescoates Yeah if I was going to do one myself I'd probably use an XMPP back end. Cloudron doesn't have an existing XMPP server AFAIK but maybe a container with ejabberd and a really simple front end or something like that.
-
G girish moved this topic from App Wishlist on
-
@drew said in *Really* lightweight, simple (use and administration) real time chat? Does it even exist today?:
Cloudron doesn't have an existing XMPP server AFAIK
It doesn't, but it ought to!
-
Signal.org provides a nice mix as an example app.
Today one should consider the UX needs by not focusing only on chat. For example for your "jitterbug" clients who would benefit from less chat and more video call type interaction. Once you open this path, it suggests that their preferred method of messaging might be short audio or video messages which techies avoid with text chat based options.
Many of the collaboration tools have chat built in, like NodeBB with it's web based in-page chat.
Another is EtherPad with the sidebar chat while you edit a text document which can also be a live chat that is a document record after you're done. It also has a p2p video plugin that works well while you do all this.
Then there's Jitsi which is focused on p2p audio/video but also has a chat option + screen sharing.
All this to say, re-consider for your specific use case and group what comes first as a primary feature (ex async or live), then secondary (a/v/text), which will help narrow down what you actually need and what the group will respond to with delight.
-
@robi I've done some product design and UX work and agree that actual research would likely reveal audio/video being the ideal path— older folks make up one of TikTok's largest demographics. Unfortunately, the point is moot because creating a system like that would be a vastly heavier lift in every conceivable way. Really a job for a team with a resource budget, not a person with a broad skillset. Beyond that, I wouldn't have the bandwidth to host it and lots of older folks wouldn't have the data plans or devices to easily use it. In terms of the cost/benefit ratio, the potential benefits are significant, but the costs drown them out.
The alternate chat solutions all suffer from one problem I'm trying to avoid— lack of interface focus on my core requirement. Folks who aren't used to navigating complex software environments shouldn't have to cut through a bunch of other functionality to accomplish their goals. And there's a good reason many that the alternate solutions you mentioned all have tiny centralized built-in chat functionality bolted on— because it's easy as hell to make. A small centralized chat app is often a tutorial project for various frameworks. If you're clamping down scope creep to the barest functionality for an MVP and using a modern framework that deals with lots of the security, storage, etc. it's a pretty light lift.
And considering these folks do use text-based synchronous (but state persistent) methods to communicate, the cost benefit ratio for a single creator looks immeasurably better. The real trick would be making that experience good enough to get the other people on board with it.
-
Teamspeak, it's in the CR app store. They have apps for iOS, Android, Windows, Mac, and Linux. It has extensive admin features if you want to create private channels for groups. TS5 is in beta which looks and works like Discord but minus the privacy invading policies. The best part is that your users don't need to "register" for an account. They download the client/app, enter the server address (and password if you have one set) and they're in!
-
@humptydumpty said in *Really* lightweight, simple (use and administration) real time chat? Does it even exist today?:
Teamspeak
Sadly not open source, which I gather is important to @drew
-
@jdaviescoates said in *Really* lightweight, simple (use and administration) real time chat? Does it even exist today?:
Sadly not open source
Sorry! I skimmed the post, I must have missed that requirement
