Inline comments.
Matthew Thomas wrote:
>
> Jennifer Glick wrote:
> >
> > A draft proposal spec for a "Labels" feature has been posted to the
> > Mozilla Mail/News spec page. Feedback wecome.
>
> <http://mozilla.org/mailnews/specs/labels/>
>
> There are already two ways of marking up a message to distinguish it
> from other messages.
>
> The first method is to set its priority. Currently this can only be done
> by the author of a message, but there is an RFE to allow the recipient
> to do it as well <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84274>.
>
> This would be better than a `Labels' feature in five respects.
>
> 1. Unlike labels, the interface for changing priority would be very
> simple -- you wouldn't need Yet Another Pref Panel for it, just a
> `Change Priority to' submenu in the `Message' menu.
Priority has nothing to do with any kind of labelling system. That's
not it's purpose, nor IMHO, should it be. Also, how do you make a
feature like this customizable without a prefs panel of some sort?
> 2. Unlike labels, changing priority would be compatible with other mail
> clients and previous versions of Mozilla -- an IMAP message with
> priority changed to `High' in Seamonkey, for example, would also
> show up with High priority when viewed later in 4.x or in any other
> mail program which understands the Priority header.
(Most) IMAP users don't expect to sit down at home and see the same
setup as they have at their work computer unless they've specifically
set things up that way. As for changing priority on IMAP messages, do
the various IMAP servers allow you to make changes to messages that
way? I know you can file messages and create folders, but I was unaware
that you could make changes to the actual headers.
> 3. Unlike labels, the Priority of a message could be negotiated between
> the author and the recipient. Someone may trust particular authors
> (e.g. managers, family members, or sysadmins) to set message
> priority appropriately at composition time, while using a filter to
> apply Normal priority to all other incoming messages. (A
> fill-in-the-blanks example of such a filter could even be provided,
> turned off by default, when a mail account is set up.)
That's fine, but labels are strictly a recipient option. They have
nothing to do with the sender. Once again, Priority is and should be
totally separate from a labelling system.
> 4. Unlike labels, Priority is not likely to be confused with the Labels
> feature in the Finder. (Another way of avoiding this confusion would
> be to make the Finder labels and the Mozilla labels one and the same
> thing, but I can't imagine that happening in a hurry.)
Fine, then come up with a different name. Or be more precise for the
Mac platform - i.e., Mail Labels. I'm sure that someone can come up
with something catchy. As a side note, do you know anyone that uses
Finder labels? I'm actually curious about this one, as I've never seen
anyone that does.
> 5. Recipient-side priority changing would be considerably simpler to
> implement than labels would.
That doesn't mean that both shouldn't be implemented.
> The second method of marking up a message is to flag it. Currently (as
> in 4.x) this is just a boolean toggle, which is not very expressive. But
> this could be easily extended to (for example) add a note to a message,
> or to add an alarm reminding the user to reply to the message at a
> certain time. (Such features would not be available to authors, only recipients.)
This also has nothing to do with a filing system. What you're
suggesting here sounds more like an Enterprise type feature, perhaps
linking the "Flag" to a Calendar.
> Again, this would be more interoperable than a Labels feature would; if
> you flagged an IMAP message to remind yourself to reply to it in a week,
> but in a week you happened to be reading your mail via Webmail at an
> Internet kiosk in Costa Rica, the message would still appear flagged in
> the Webmail display. (You just wouldn't get the exact reminder that
> Mozilla would give you.)
And again, I was unaware that you could make changes to message headers
via IMAP. If I'm wrong, I'd sure like to know, because this is a most
handy feature. If you're talking about Webmail, of course, that's
something completely different - but then, you knew that. :-)
> So I think adding a Labels feature would be misguided, when there could
> be other less complex, more interoperable, and (in the case of flagging)
> more useful mechanisms for achieving the same purpose.
Adding any feature would be complex given the right perspective. I talk
to people 5 days a week who don't know how to use an Enter key, or what
their username is, or how to forward a message, etc... How do you mean
"misguided?" What's complex about this? What's difficult to figure
out? One prefs panel, one menu item, probably a context menu entry
(optional), and one column. I won't even mention the filter entry,
because anyone that found this system complex wouldn't be able to use
filters.
Comments appreciated.
Justin H.
--
"If it's in stock, we've got it!"
-slogan for a tire store
