I'm not a fan of the fact that two different menu items take you to
the exact same place (the collection details dialog) and that the
Chandler subscription page is not only a different dialog box, but a
different page altogether.
Also, the "old" collection details dialog is still in that page - are
we going to have both? One for logged in users, one for non-logged in
users?
Bobby
On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:
That's great. I think this is a great example of why we should list
out the apps individually. It would be unfortunate if users didn't
subscribe simply out of a lack of awareness.
Priscilla's mock-up of the Subscribe / Add pull-down would allow us
to do this without cluttering up the UI.
Thx for the info Jared,
Mimi
On Dec 11, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Jared Rhine wrote:
Priscilla Chung wrote:
Based on a thread that has been going about subscriptions to iCal...
It's possible that people aren't widely aware, so to mention in
passing: Outlook supports the webcal protocol and can subscribe to
a webcal calendar published anywhere. So Outlook users are not
required to download an ICS file to interop (Outlook Express I'm
not sure). ICS download in Cosmo is of course a handy feature
that's good to include regardless.
I haven't tested Outlook webcal interop with Cosmo; your mileage
may vary. Greatly. Documents suggest that Outlook 2007 will
include a webcal:// URL handler so that clicking on a URL of that
form in a browser will create an Outlook popup confirming the
subscription in Outlook.
-- Jared
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
