Hello,
See comments in-line.
On Nov 16, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Grant Baillie wrote:
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 to clarify for myself what Grant is articulating. If a message is
also an event (Invitation) then do this rerouting of the from etc to
provide a better collaboration user experience. Now what happens if
the item is just a mail message and not an Invitation?
Does this rerouting still take place or do we use the traditional
mail from, to, cc that we currently support in the detail view.
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.
I would think this *would* be confusing especially if the behavior
changes for a mail message vs. an invitation. If this is the case I
would vote for a different nomenclature for the invitation workflow's
such as "Organizer" instead of "From".
-Brian
...
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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
