Hi all,
Steve Lamb wrote:
> 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.
Well a couple thoughts on this. The fact that the cursor should be
placed as you say it should may be logical but as I said before, user
interaction isn't always based on simple logic. That's it, your logic
is simple. If one goes a step further with you, you shout foul.
hahahah. People tend to be different, that's all. I feel that it's
presumptuous to place the cursor in the To: field after creating a
message with the address book. I can't remember ever having to reenter
an address after this.
I hope that the readership realizes that I'm arguing on the basis of
principle here. I've gone beyond the particular point which started the
debate.
Do you remember when there was an appeal for and a long thread which
looked at providing an error message when an attempt is made to send a
message without a subject. Why is that. Why do most mailers provide
this error message. Why does TB! give an error message every 30
seconds when composing a message without an address in the To: field?
Simple : Not everyone has this allegedly logical stepwise approach. I
tend to prefer this stepwise approach and this is why I have no need
for no subject error messages or reminders to enter an address, but
this is besides the point.
> To break that because you *assume* the user is done with that is the
> assumption.
IMHO, I believe we are arguing two assumptions and which is the better
one to make but there is no point in pressing it.
>> 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.
Do you have statistics to prove *your* point. It was you who introduced
proving. :)
>> 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 don't get the point do you? I didn't really expect it. It was you
who wrote it anyway. <sigh>
>> 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.
Good. I hope you don't reach this issue. :))
>> 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 would have taken only you to infer this from my statement. Just
great.
>> 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.
You didn't get my point.
>> 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.
ROTFL!
>> 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?
I hope that's a rhetorical question but if it's not, my answer would be
this Steve:
As you said: 'Then think, Steve, don't just disengage your brain' and
ask that. TB! gives me a better mixture of functionality and
usability. This doesn't mean that it's better than Agent in every
respect or Agent is better than TB in every respect.
--
Regards,
-=Ali=-
>>> 24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? <<<
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
Using The Bat! v1.37 Beta/3 [-] Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6)
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
