"Justin H." wrote:
>...
> Matthew Thomas wrote:
>...
> > 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.
Why not?
> Also, how do you make a
> feature like this customizable without a prefs panel of some sort?
You don't. That's the whole idea.
> > 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.
Sure, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
> 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.
Yes -- you can delete the message, then APPEND a copy which differs only
in its Priority header.
> > 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.
Yes, that's exactly the problem.
> Once again, Priority is and should be
> totally separate from a labelling system.
Why?
> > 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.
I did. `Priority'.
> 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.
I do, occasionally. I imagine that mail labels would only be slightly
more popular, due to the ability to apply them automatically using filters.
> > 5. Recipient-side priority changing would be considerably simpler
> > to implement than labels would.
>
> That doesn't mean that both shouldn't be implemented.
True -- the fact that implementing both at once would be quite confusing
was a reason I didn't even mention.
> > 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.
That's because we're not talking about mail folders.
> What you're
> suggesting here sounds more like an Enterprise type feature, perhaps
> linking the "Flag" to a Calendar.
That would be a possible enhancement, yes.
> > 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.
Changing the flaggedness of an IMAP message is even easier than changing
its headers.
> If you're talking about Webmail, of course,
> that's something completely different - but then, you knew that. :-)
Nope. My mail account works with both Webmail and IMAP.
> > 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.
Sure, but that's not what I was complaining about. I was saying that
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.
> 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...
So do I.
> How do
> you mean "misguided?"
adj. led or prompted by wrong or inappropriate motives or ideals.
> What's complex about this?
It's not particularly complex, but it's about twice as complex as the
more interoperable and (in the case of flagging) more useful mechanisms
for achieving the same purpose.
> What's difficult to
> figure out? One prefs panel, one menu item, probably a context menu
> entry (optional), and one column.
As opposed to zero prefs panels, one menu item, zero extra context menu
items (other than those already in the spec), and zero columns.
> I won't even mention the filter
> entry, because anyone that found this system complex wouldn't be able
> to use filters.
>...
Novices aren't the only people who benefit from simplicity. Experts
often have better things to do than wade through excessive amounts of
UI, such as Mozilla already has in many places.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla UI Design component default assignee thing
<http://mozilla.org/>
