On Jan 23, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Mason Mark wrote:
> On the other side of the equation, as I think it has now been hashed to death
> in the thread, arbitrarily limiting these "full-power" windows to only one,
> takes away some serious power from the user.
[snip]
> I mean, we're not here to make Delicious Email, right? So I'd hope that in
> making this kind of design trade-offs, the general rule for Letters.app would
> be to err on the side of power.
All good points. But one way to think about this: does multiple main windows
*have* to be in there for a successful 1.0? Could it be considered for 1.1 or
2.0 instead?
It's common, when discussing a particular feature, to magnify its importance.
(I do it all the time myself.)
But getting to 1.0 is going to be a scarily ruthless process. (Or, it should
be, anyway.) And the general rule needs to be something more like "does this
*really* have to be in there for this release to be successful?"
It's okay if users want more. And, no matter what you do, no matter how many
features are added, people will *always* want more. ("I'd switch to Letters.app
in a heartbeat if only it _____." If Letters is a success, we'll still be
hearing that in five and 10 years.)
Maybe this feature really does have to be there for a successful 1.0. (I don't
know.) I'm just suggesting a way of thinking about design issues like this.
-Brent
PS Should the code be written in a way that doesn't preclude this feature? My
personal opinion: yes, since in this case that's just good architecture.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
