>Moreover, encouraging users to put new content at the top of an email >makes it much easier to parse new information out of the latest email in >a trail of emails; since most non-technical email users (now the vast >majority) don't know about commenting and inline responses, suggesting >that new content be put at the top (i.e, where the eye goes first) >instead of after the comment (which could be several pages' worth below >the bottom of the window, requiring scrolling just to get to it) is >probably a good thing. > >Now, if everyone would edit the commented text to what is relevant, and >maintain quoting, and do inline commenting, that'd be marvy - but the >thing is, they don't. > > >On 11/1/06 at 11:32 PM, Mikael Byström ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > >>marco osti said it like this: >> >>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. >>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >>>A: Top-posting. >>>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >> >>Question: Why is this quote so meaningless? >>Answer: Because it assumes all messages have the need for the exact same >>structure and suggest that one rule will cover it all for everyone. >>Selfevidently, all rules and beliefs that says there is only one way are >>inherently wrong by design.
Hmmm... I don't know. I kinda like responses at the bottom. :P Chris --
