Matthew Thomas wrote:
> Whether or not they are provided by the same application, the Web and
> e-mail are often used at the same time.
No, at least not for me.
Reading email/news and browsing are different tasks. Usually, I read
email for half an hour, doing nothing else. Browsing is usually an
inherent part of my work.
(OK, with bugzilla spam, browsing is also part of email answering, but
that is not a typical situation.)
You have a point only if users are on dialups paid by time. (This user
group is constantly decreasing - it'd guess, by today, the majority of
users is permanently connected.)
> mailto: links are given in Web
> pages. URLs are provided in e-mail messages. And other information
> provided in one application is copied by users for use in the other. The
> same applies, albeit to a lesser extent, for instant messaging.
The same applies for *all* internet apps. Even for FTP (URLs in
READMEs). More and more apps are interconnected. At some point, all apps
are. (Heck, even Word can display network-based content.) So, do you
want to clobber them all together in one suite, or provide starters for
all of them in all of these apps?
That's why Microsoft (and GNOME and KDE) has a point in making URL
switchboarding a task of the OS. And that's why there is no point to
have a apps starters in apps.
> The OSes used by the majority of users -- that is, Windows and Mac OS --
...and Linux
> do not provide an easy method of launching the other program once the
> first is running. In Windows, you have to fight your way through the
> Start > Programs hierarchy,
Not true. You can add starters directly to the taskbar (that's even the
default config). Same for GNOME and KDE.
> which suffers from the various UI problems
> of menus in Windows generally,
We are not here to heal the world. We provide internet software. We
cannot fix shortcommings of the OS.
> and which (thanks to egotistical
> installers) is usually rather uselessly categorized by vendor rather
> than by program type.
Unless the user changes it (what he is supposed to do).
>>> and who uses a
>>> display which is too small for a decently-sized biff icon in any
>>> place not covered by browser windows.
>>
> So any always-on-top application switcher provided by the OS -- such as
> the Application Switcher in Mac OS 8/9, or the taskbar in Windows 9x --
> has to be (and is) too small for comfortable use in order to be small
> enough to be out of the way.
Don't tell me that 16x16 (or were it even 32x32?) pixels are not enough
for an "you have new mail" icon, especially when there is also sound.
You make an interesting point: "out of the way". If the taskbar would
take away too much space, why would it be better, if the icon were onthe
top of the screen (in the navigator toolbars).
Ah, yes, that's less bad, because you only read mail while you browse. Not.
If we really moved the biff from the taskbar into Navigator, how would I
see new mail while I do not browse? Do you want to have 2 biffs?
>> ...
>> If the OS' taskbar doesn't provide any way to show a decently sized
>> icon, that's the OS' fault.
>
> If you think anyone is going to see that Mozilla doesn't provide the
> option of a Mail button on its toolbar, and think `oh! silly me! I must
> start using a different OS!', rather than just using a different
> browser, you're on the wrong planet.
Yes, I guess I am.
