👀 I'm interested, DMs are open!

you're great npmx, I had to pick someone 😥

tysm Sebastian! I hope to see more collaboration on solving actual product issues across the Atmosphere.

iterating and obsessing over design & copywriting will go a very long way, just as creating the actual technical underpinnings of the protocol itself already has.

updated it in my working copy, thank you :)

that's precisely what I'm hoping to avoid. with good iteration, atproto has a great opportunity to do far better. it'll take serious collaboration + cooperation across the Atmosphere as a whole to make anything work. if every app goes their own direction with copy and interactions… the problem stays

I feel it's a good middle-ground that serves both the uninitiated first-time user and experienced user equally well. especially, improving the registration flow for apps that don't provide a PDS is critical!

ty for the alt text callout! I'm usually pretty careful to add it to everything, got a bit lazy during the thread not realizing so many people would have conversations off those screenshots 😰

All these small things should make it easy for the user who will never care what a PDS, or protocol, or even 'open web' is to get on the protocol.

In my ideal world, everyone can reap the benefits without needing to understand it well. We have to meet them where they're at!

Preserving the domain chosen while entering a handle to prominently suggest *that* PDS provider creates a feeling of ownership over the handle before they claim it. It helps justify the friction of linking out to the registration flow and coming back.

In my mind, the moment you enter a '.' the suffix text goes away. Off-screen in my mockup there's a "Custom Domain" option.

Providing popular suffixes by default quietly introduces the concept of "every name has a domain suffix, you must choose something" without spelling it out.

I don't think apps should need to explain what it is. The minimum a user needs to understand is "you can use this account on any app 'in the Atmosphere'"

If we standardize the terminology, friction goes way down & recognizability goes up

+ for curious users, a "Learn More" link-out goes a long way

And together, we're... the Atmosphere

By asking the user to pre-choose their handle before sending them off to create it, we can prefill the handle in registration flows that support it

Then, when the user returns, check if the handle now resolves and continue onboarding the user to *your* app easily

This requires some curation, but if done well across the Atmosphere, it easily onboards users and gets them familiar with the basic concepts without over-explaining everything

Find or create your Atmosphere Account. A text input labelled "Handle" and a row of buttons to choose a popular suffix, like "bsky.social" or "tngl.sh." The user entered a username and selected "tngl.sh," and is now prompted to press "Search."

Create your Atmosphere Account? A blank preview profile shows for "fakename.tngl.sh." The username "fakename" is prominent. The screen explains, "There's not an Atmosphere Account with the handle you entered. You can choose an app to create one." Tangled is the prominent recommendation, labelled "To claim a handle on 'tngl.sh'." A list of other popular apps includes Bluesky, Blacksky, and additional apps below the fold.

When an app that doesn't operate a PDS guides a user through setup it can fluidly guide the user to pre-choose their handle and create an account on a PDS provider:

To empower users to take full advantage of the protocol, popular apps need to agree on terminology and interaction patterns

Communicate that "Bluesky isn't the only app out there" and also "create an account on X, and use it on Y, and even Z"

The more I play with different terminology the more convinced I am that "Atmosphere Account" communicates the right thing to the average user

People already understand that an "account" is identified by a "handle" (or "username", the concept maps easily)

kinda fits into this idea of guiding the user to account creation: bsky.app/profile/ilyn...

some level of curation is probably best for a list that would be embedded into apps, but I agree with the idea — give them a list, sort by what's most recognizable, let them choose one

guiding the user to create an account with a little "preview" feels nice

trying to make it sound less like "these are all apps made by one company" but I think it needs more work

From top left:

@pinksky.app @pckt.blog @tangled.org @bluescreen.blue

@flashes.blue @stream.place @bsky.app @blackskyweb.xyz @leaflet.pub

@anisota.net @aturi.to @teal.fm @margin.at

i honestly just pulled the apps i know most about in, would love to show more if using this more practically. this was just a mockup anyway :)

SORRY PCKT YOU DESERVE BETTER

the point is more to show "if you use any of these apps, you can sign in with the same account here"

I hope it helps! :D

bsky.app/profile/ilyn...

ofc take your own creative direction on this for the app. I've wanted to try my hand at a simple atproto explainer for a while, so this post felt like a good opportunity to try something :')

makes sense! "Atmosphere account" is really practical for most users, but my technical side loves "internet handle"

I think this can be simplified down to one explainer slide + the check flow:

App icons from the Atmosphere laid out in a grid, Bluesky is the centermost app.

- jump straight into the "check" flow
- provide examples for common providers (the ".bsky.social" part is the hardest for avg user to remember)
- show a full profile preview if possible, so it's easier to recognize and yes/no instantly