Thursday, November 18, 1999, 9:03:43 AM, Ali wrote:
> Well, assuming that I haven't finished addressing when creating a
> message with the address book seems quite the more unlikely assumption
> to make.
No, it isn't an assumption. In creating a message there are several
steps. In every other case the UI places you into the header section of the
creation process before the body of the message with one exception, replies.
Personally, I think it should there as well. This is consistency with the UI,
logical consistency.
To break that because you *assume* the user is done with that is the
assumption.
> Why place the cursor at the To: field when the likelihood of wishing to
> add more addresses is small as in the case sited above where the
> message is created using the address book?
And your statistics on this to support breaking of acceptable behavior
is... what, again? Oh, you don't have any. I forgot.
> These arguments are produced by thinking Steve. Arguments provoke
> thought and hopefully produce change for the better. Bullying people
> by saying their suggestions are idiotic is really ...... Hmmmm ....
> unbecoming for want of a better word. :-|
Then what better word would you have in mind. If an idea to change
acceptable and logical behavior for unacceptable and illogical behavior is
idiotic, I'm going to call it what it is, idiotic.
> You may as well say to me that it's inappropriate for the cursor to
> end up where it is when you reply to message (note that the
> cursor is not placed initially in the To: field when you create a
> reply) because I just may wish to add another recipient or that I just
> might wish to change the subject. Don't you change subjects when
> replying at times? Changing the subject to [OT] is a popular practice
> on TBUDL. :)
You'll note I did cite that above. Yes, it is what I'd consider an
inconsistency, just not one that I've had time to address what with all the
other more pressing problems TB! has.
> I don't know why you insist on placing this logic and consistency in
> human interaction.
Oh, heaven forbid I want a logical interface and a consistent design so I
can make assumptions on the behavior of the machine to increase my
productivity! Perish the thought! Let chaos and anarchy reign!!! All hail
Ali!!!
> It's the variability in user interaction, expectations and intuition which
> make user interfaces differ and vary so much and which has everyone never
> truly satisfied with an interface unless they are able to *completely*
> customize it.
No interface is completely customizable unless it is programmed by the
individual. Even then it isn't completely customizable.
> Well place the cursor in the next empty field. :) Why in the to field
> where 5 addresses may already be entered? Oh, you just might have
> others to enter. That's really a rough one to chew.
Then chew harder and deal with it.
> Guess what Agent does. It places the cursor in the next empty field.
> Grand. I find the usability features of Agent to be so well thought
> out, it's truly remarkable. :)
Then tell me why you're here?
>> It is not consistency to one's detriment, it is logical consistency
>> where an otherwise annoying assumption by the machine would be made.
> Whatever......
Back at'cha, babe.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
