So, one way to think about this is that, as soon as you're editing a
message that has already been sent, that item is not really a
message. It's a note that you are collaborating on with other people.
e.g. A packing list that you're adding stuff to. A draft of a
proposal you're writing up. Etc.
It's the same as if you could embed the contents of a wiki page in an
email...which people often do when they send links around to wiki
pages because they know people would prefer to read the documents
without having to click away from their email client. The bummer
about that is that the text you put into an email can't be edited and
updated the way a wiki page can.
So imagine that when Chandler users edit and update messages, it's
similar to the way people might like to update wiki pages if they
could be embedded into email messages. Instead of clicking on the
wiki link to go edit the contents on the wiki, I can just edit the
text right in the message and hit Update to send my edits back to
everyone else.
That shouldn't change the original From: and To: of the item, in the
same way that the last person who edited a wiki page doesn't change
the original person who Created the wiki page.
Does that make sense or is it just more confusing? :)
Mimi
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
