On 16 Nov, 2006, at 00:15, Davor Cubranic wrote:
Brian Kirsch wrote:
Perhaps I misspoke. In Chandler, the From field doesn't
necessarily have a valid email address. It could just be text.
The "Send via" field is what would normally go in the "From"
field of a traditional email client.
In normal email clients, recipients of Chandler messages will see
the email address in the "Send via" field appear in the "From
field".
Honestly I don't see what you are trying to accomplish here. A
email message in a traditional mail client must have a from with a
valid email address. It can't just be text. If the Send Via is
normally what would go in the From field then lets put that in the
From field. We still have to support traditional email clients so
why are we reinventing the wheel here?
I think Mimi is trying to make the distinction between "from" and
"reply-to" headers a little less jargony. One could perhaps argue
that it is more natural to let the user just say "Send as", and
then behind the scenes map that value to the "from" email header
and the account address to the "reply-to" header.
My understanding of the design is this: When Chandler is displaying
an invitation, i.e. an event stamped as an email, the main focus is
on the event, i.e. who is organizing it, who is attending, who is
being notified (but isn't attending). The fact that the invite is
being transported via email is secondary; in fact, if the item is
shared, some of the people in the addressing fields will find out
about it via syncing a share instead of email. You can also imagine a
future Chandler where the invite is transported via other mechanisms
(jabber, atompub, CalDAV scheduling, ...).
So, that is what the design was designed to support. You can still
get at the email fields via a menu item, but that's not enabled by
default. One point of contention, that we discussed in the past, was
that users might find the new use of the terms "from", "to", "cc"
confusing. This may well be possible, but really we won't know for
sure until we've gotten the app in the hands of real users.
...
P.S. "Send via" sounds really awkward. How about "send as"?
Personally, I think I prefer "send as" slightly. However, I'm not
totally enamoured with either (not being totally enamoured with
terminology seems to be a recurring condition for me, though :).
--Grant
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
