Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Andy Fragen said: >What I want is something that is flexible enough to work in a manner >that will make your workflow and mine easier. This would include >intermingling of smart and concrete folders, possibly tabs, etc. Besides the intermingling part as a necessity, that's pretty much describes the essentials of what I think is needed. >Not sure what you mean by 'putting the real concrete folders down.' As I've pointed out earlier in the thread as have others, adding 'smart folders' would move the concrete real folders further down the display. It doesn't have to be a problem of course, but nevertheless it's a minor additional reason I'd prefer these in a tab of their own. It should of course be possible to drag them to the catalog browser, either for real or just as some type of aliases. This is at least one way to have both solutions work side by side. PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
You didn't quote the most important part of my point. > Concrete folders displays messages that have been "physically" put in them, > whereas smart folders display messages based upon some search algorithm. -- Andy Fragen On Sat, Mar 25, 2006, computer artwork by subhash said: >[Andy Fragen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 24.3.2006 um 15:17 Uhr:] > >>But are they really different things. > >Yes, I think so. > >>They're both folders and as such >>should have all the same features and characteristics of folders. > >No. Smart folders and real folders have only the name in common. >Next thing will be that people want to put messages physically in smart >folders because they are folders as the others. That is not the case, is it? > >>The >>only real difference is what they display. > >And why. And that smart folders are more like a collection of aliases >while real folders (at least in the finder) are a collection of files.
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
>Andy Fragen said: > >>Concrete folders displays >>messages that have been "physically" put in them, whereas smart folders >>display messages based upon some search algorithm. > >That's what different about them, yes (though I'd be tempted to say >"logically"). Would you really say that search results windows are the >same thing like a folder? Only if they are persistent. >Following your logic, why then not put these search results of today in >the browser, putting the real concrete folders down. As you already said >'smart folders' are search results, only with the search criteria retained. >This is what you want? What I want is something that is flexible enough to work in a manner that will make your workflow and mine easier. This would include intermingling of smart and concrete folders, possibly tabs, etc. Not sure what you mean by 'putting the real concrete folders down.' >Following this logic even further: It could also be argued that Mail >filters belong next to the folders they affect so we could keep them in >the browser as well. You can easily see that it could be really crowded, >which is why I feel it shouldn't be default. I think filters should remain in a separate interface, as they are. If you really want to see how filtering is done well look to Mailsmith's distributed filters. >I can think of a number of reasons why it's bad UI-design to put 'smart' >folders next to real ones and I'm sure if that is case in Mail, it has >been discussed already. Actually, I think the mailbox-oriented ways of >Mail is pretty stupid and is one reason why I didn't pick it up. I don't >want PowerMail to become more "Mail-like" just because 'smart folders' is >a cool concept. > >But for now, I don't see there is much more point to discuss placement of >imaginary folders, unless can be further detailed in any useful fashion. >It should be noted my expressed opinions on the subject are not >necessarily based on my personal preference. > >I think the parts of this discussion on how people work with their email >was most interesting. Thanks! I'd like to see more sharing their ways of >interacting with their email, please. Agreed, because that's really what it's all about. I have several nested folders as well as "temporary" folders whose content older than xx days is deleted on a cron job. In reality, we all adapt out methods of using and processing email to fit the capabilities of the program that we have chosen. Personally, smart folders, as I have described would help me minimally, but if I was using a different email program that answer would be different. It might also change the way I worked. I could see having fewer concrete folders and making up some of the difference with smart folders when needed. -- Andy Fragen
Re(2): Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
[Andy Fragen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 24.3.2006 um 15:17 Uhr:] >But are they really different things. Yes, I think so. >They're both folders and as such >should have all the same features and characteristics of folders. No. Smart folders and real folders have only the name in common. Next thing will be that people want to put messages physically in smart folders because they are folders as the others. That is not the case, is it? >The >only real difference is what they display. And why. And that smart folders are more like a collection of aliases while real folders (at least in the finder) are a collection of files. -- http://www.subhash.at
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Mikael Byström said: >I don't see there is much more point to discuss placement of >imaginary folders, unless can be further detailed in any useful fashion. Some words disappeared here. I meant: I don't see there is much more point to discuss placement of imaginary folders, unless thoughts that can potentially unify reduction of clutter/ folders ideas and freedom of placement ideas can be further detailed in any useful fashion. PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Andy Fragen said: >Concrete folders displays >messages that have been "physically" put in them, whereas smart folders >display messages based upon some search algorithm. That's what different about them, yes (though I'd be tempted to say "logically"). Would you really say that search results windows are the same thing like a folder? Following your logic, why then not put these search results of today in the browser, putting the real concrete folders down. As you already said 'smart folders' are search results, only with the search criteria retained. This is what you want? Following this logic even further: It could also be argued that Mail filters belong next to the folders they affect so we could keep them in the browser as well. You can easily see that it could be really crowded, which is why I feel it shouldn't be default. I can think of a number of reasons why it's bad UI-design to put 'smart' folders next to real ones and I'm sure if that is case in Mail, it has been discussed already. Actually, I think the mailbox-oriented ways of Mail is pretty stupid and is one reason why I didn't pick it up. I don't want PowerMail to become more "Mail-like" just because 'smart folders' is a cool concept. But for now, I don't see there is much more point to discuss placement of imaginary folders, unless can be further detailed in any useful fashion. It should be noted my expressed opinions on the subject are not necessarily based on my personal preference. I think the parts of this discussion on how people work with their email was most interesting. Thanks! I'd like to see more sharing their ways of interacting with their email, please. PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006, Mikael Byström said: >Andy Fragen said: > >>Why couldn't smart folders simply integrate with real folders and be >>alpha sorted? Then all they really need is a different icon so the user >>has some indication that they're different. I also see some sort of plus/ >>minus/gear menu at the bottom of the folder panel. > >Well, I already gave reasons why and meant that I feel that if these >possibilities are added to PowerMail at some point, 'smart' and >'concrete' folder integration side by side (or row by row) shouldn't be >default, simply because Smart Folders and Concrete Folders are two >different things. >It should be possible though to arrange folders in any way one would like. But are they really different things. They're both folders and as such should have all the same features and characteristics of folders. The only real difference is what they display. Concrete folders displays messages that have been "physically" put in them, whereas smart folders display messages based upon some search algorithm. -- Andy Fragen
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Andy Fragen said: >Why couldn't smart folders simply integrate with real folders and be >alpha sorted? Then all they really need is a different icon so the user >has some indication that they're different. I also see some sort of plus/ >minus/gear menu at the bottom of the folder panel. Well, I already gave reasons why and meant that I feel that if these possibilities are added to PowerMail at some point, 'smart' and 'concrete' folder integration side by side (or row by row) shouldn't be default, simply because Smart Folders and Concrete Folders are two different things. It should be possible though to arrange folders in any way one would like. PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006, Mikael Byström said: >Andy Fragen said: > >>I'm not really sure why a smart folder, which should have a different >>icon, need be any different than a regular folder in function. In other >>words, double click it and it opens in another window. Is that somehow >>not similar to incorporating smart folders into the RMB? > >Not necessarily. Things could be made more useful. For starters can smart >folders not be something more than "saved self-updating user settable >searches"? They could be anything that's possible via code. ;-) But, I think that the 'usual' expectation is that smart folders are continually updated searches. >Smart folders would need to be in a different *default* place not to >confuse some people, not necessarily newcomers. >The confusion would be over whether what to expect to find in these >folders. A certain amount of people would - even if they set them up >themselves - expect that things they'd seen there would always be there, >even if the settings didn't support it. Because that is how people expect >folders to work. Also, most likely people would have a few to many 'smart >folders' and the folder listing would grow with these in addition and >move the "real" folders further down (if smart folders defaulted in the >upper region). Why couldn't smart folders simply integrate with real folders and be alpha sorted? Then all they really need is a different icon so the user has some indication that they're different. I also see some sort of plus/ minus/gear menu at the bottom of the folder panel. >One example that the GUI can confuse, also myself, because of reasonable >expectations on the GUI and what is shown, is that I had initial problems >the first weeks of use (in 2003 with v. 3) with having no indication of >when I had "Show Only Unread" active and thought for days that the >messages disappeared. This is not a unique experience. This bit a lot of people. >As another example I have mentioned the fact that the search dialog >doesn't indicate what kind of "words" that are not possible to find in >the index, something that would still confuse myself had I not been on >this list. I know many are not confused being unaware of the limitations >and when they come into play to affect the results they see (Note that >I'm not saying that searches have a big problem. It only affect certain >searches, not all, but the search dialog doesn't indicate the limitations >with indexed searching) Agreed. >One elegant solution would probably be a search tab, that would contain >user saved searches as well as the Recent Mail Folder (user tweakable I >imagine and with the same shortcut as usual). > From there the user could drag the virtual smart folders to the regular >folder listing, perhaps only as aliases. So having the Recent Messages >and other 'smart' folders should be able to put in the folder view, but I >think it's vital that this placement *isn't the default*. That's an interesting idea. >"Tabs" do have momentum to a much larger degree than 'smart folders' and >would keep as a *default* the 'virtual folders' (built-in and user- >definable) *separate* from the actual email message catalog, which the >browser is now displaying. I agree that tabs do have a certain amount of momentum and I believe that if they were implemented and the RMW was a constant tab presence more people would likely use it. >Don't you people that use the RMW and think it should be in the folder >view also think that search result windows in separate windows is an >abomination too? I think it would be neat and useful to store searches of >all kinds under a specific tab, rather than all over the place. It's a >more organized solution. Personally I don't suffer much having search >results windows all over the place though. > >Another solution would be folding the smart folders, like in the Finder >list view, but I think that's not as good solution. I'm not getting into >why here. Not sure what you mean by folding, nor why it's not a good solution. Since this discussion is theoretical we should have the benefit of what we think is good as well as what we think is bad. >I'm sure, if the usability goals can be defined of what users need and if >CTM agrees those features should be implemented at some point, that even >better solutions can be found. Agreed. > I don't think Apples iApp solutions (in >the interface & functionality areas discussed) are totally on the spot >nor are they unique and seldom firsts too. They do give user expectations >though, but even if the workings of specific features and details are >used in another developed app, it's not necessarily wrong to further >improve things. If nothing else, to avoid getting sued on copyright >infringement. I'm not sure there's any copyright infringement as most of these interfaces have been put into many other programs, but doing so might necessitate rewriting PM in Cocoa to take full advantage of these methods. -- Andy Fragen
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Andy Fragen said: >I'm not really sure why a smart folder, which should have a different >icon, need be any different than a regular folder in function. In other >words, double click it and it opens in another window. Is that somehow >not similar to incorporating smart folders into the RMB? Not necessarily. Things could be made more useful. For starters can smart folders not be something more than "saved self-updating user settable searches"? Smart folders would need to be in a different *default* place not to confuse some people, not necessarily newcomers. The confusion would be over whether what to expect to find in these folders. A certain amount of people would - even if they set them up themselves - expect that things they'd seen there would always be there, even if the settings didn't support it. Because that is how people expect folders to work. Also, most likely people would have a few to many 'smart folders' and the folder listing would grow with these in addition and move the "real" folders further down (if smart folders defaulted in the upper region). One example that the GUI can confuse, also myself, because of reasonable expectations on the GUI and what is shown, is that I had initial problems the first weeks of use (in 2003 with v. 3) with having no indication of when I had "Show Only Unread" active and thought for days that the messages disappeared. This is not a unique experience. As another example I have mentioned the fact that the search dialog doesn't indicate what kind of "words" that are not possible to find in the index, something that would still confuse myself had I not been on this list. I know many are not confused being unaware of the limitations and when they come into play to affect the results they see (Note that I'm not saying that searches have a big problem. It only affect certain searches, not all, but the search dialog doesn't indicate the limitations with indexed searching) One elegant solution would probably be a search tab, that would contain user saved searches as well as the Recent Mail Folder (user tweakable I imagine and with the same shortcut as usual). From there the user could drag the virtual smart folders to the regular folder listing, perhaps only as aliases. So having the Recent Messages and other 'smart' folders should be able to put in the folder view, but I think it's vital that this placement *isn't the default*. "Tabs" do have momentum to a much larger degree than 'smart folders' and would keep as a *default* the 'virtual folders' (built-in and user- definable) *separate* from the actual email message catalog, which the browser is now displaying. Don't you people that use the RMW and think it should be in the folder view also think that search result windows in separate windows is an abomination too? I think it would be neat and useful to store searches of all kinds under a specific tab, rather than all over the place. It's a more organized solution. Personally I don't suffer much having search results windows all over the place though. Another solution would be folding the smart folders, like in the Finder list view, but I think that's not as good solution. I'm not getting into why here. I'm sure, if the usability goals can be defined of what users need and if CTM agrees those features should be implemented at some point, that even better solutions can be found. I don't think Apples iApp solutions (in the interface & functionality areas discussed) are totally on the spot nor are they unique and seldom firsts too. They do give user expectations though, but even if the workings of specific features and details are used in another developed app, it's not necessarily wrong to further improve things. If nothing else, to avoid getting sued on copyright infringement. "(Steve) Jobs has told interviewers over the years that, in a fast- evolving industry like computers, you can't just "give people what they want" because people don't necessarily know what they want -- and what they tell you they want today may not be what they actually want at the end of the two years it takes you to build it to their specifications." --Wired Magazine PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Re(3): Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
[computer artwork by subhash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 23.3.2006 um 23:29 Uhr:] >I am using... Addition: I am checking 7 POP3-Mail-Accounts. I shut down the machine every night. It is running whole the day. -- http://www.subhash.at
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
I'll chime in as another who rarely uses the RMB. You currently have: 40796 Messages 45 Message folders 44 Message Filters 6 Text Clippings 7 Signatures and I check 9 different email accounts. I have a similar amount and variety as do you. SpamSieve is indispensable. Most of my filters are for categorizing mail to folders. I also have several archive folders and have the 'delete aged messages' script running via a cron job so that it hits at least daily, otherwise I'd have more mail in the database. I have PM set to check mail periodically throughout the day though I don't check PM more that hourly. I run on a PowerBook so PM is open for days on end. I work in the 3 pane view. After mail comes in and gets sorted I look through business stuff first. I get business related emails from at least 7 different sources. Here's where I could really use a smart folder. I get business contact information from at least 2 different advertisements that comes through and is filtered into their respective folders. I would really like to have a smart folder that would show me all the new stuff from either of these sources so I can respond to it. Additionally, my staff might respond to this email and I have them BCC me so I have a record. Showing this in the same 'smart folder' would be great. I absolutely can't do without the 'view unread only' and Mail.app's ability to create this in a smart folder is extremely effective. I would be very happy is PM could implement smart folders a la Mail.app. I heavily use AppleScripts. I do understand Wayne's sentiment to improve certain things like IMAP, but it would be nice to continue keeping use 'power' users happy, after all, it is PowerMail. I'm not really sure why a smart folder, which should have a different icon, need be any different than a regular folder in function. In other words, double click it and it opens in another window. Is that somehow not similar to incorporating smart folders into the RMB? Anyway, I do find it an interesting discussion and only serves to show that even though we all *love* working with PM; we can all use it in different ways. Andy -- Andy Fragen On Thu, Mar 23, 2006, Mikael Byström said: >Thanks for sharing your experiences. Would you care to describe your >workflow? What types of email do you receive and send? Business, mailing >lists, private? What are the volume of messages? >Do you also think that you would have no use for saveable searches in the >form of 'smart folders' á la the 'smart playlists' in iTunes or 'smart >folders' in Mail?
Re(2): Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
[Mikael Byström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 23.3.2006 um 20:01 Uhr:] >Thanks for sharing your experiences. Would you care to describe your >workflow? I currently have: 9066 Messages 31 Message folders 44 Message Filters 23 Text Clippings 28 Signatures 46 Scripts I am using the 3 panel view and I am never using the recent messages window. I have business-oriented correspondence too: about 2-10 incoming and outgoing every workday, few mailing lists: about 0-20 messages per day. Most messages are directed by filters to folders. Spam: 10-25 per day, most get to the SPAM folder by SpamSieve (currently 92.5% correct - doesn't work that good for me: now and then there are false negatives). Private messages are typically 0-10 per day. Also I start the morning usually with an email session. I check the folders with bold text in the order of their importance and respond immediately to the messages. If this is not possible I give a label to the message and the folder which signs the action I have to take later (about 10%). Every message I write I finish before starting a new. There are very few exceptions. During the rest of the day I check for messages every 10 minutes. Messages from mailing lists and SPAM is not announced by the acoustic sign. I read them when I feel I have time to do so. Other Mails usually are answered immediately when needed. I use the scripts very often, some by filters, some by hand. Maybe 25% of the messages are processed by scripts. Filters I do not need are deleted. New ones created now and then (e.g. new customer). Also Mails I do not need are deleted. Except the SPAM (quick control in the list) maybe 25% to 45%. Most of the time I have no unread message but maybe some times one or two which are not answered yet. From time to time I put folders of older projects to subfolders. Maybe once a month I compress the database and the index. Two times a day the DB is backuped automatically without closing it first to an other internal HD. Maybe once a week it is saved after closing to an external harddisk. >Do you also think that you would have no use for saveable searches in the >form of 'smart folders' á la the 'smart playlists' in iTunes or 'smart >folders' in Mail? I am satisfied with my workflow and PM and don't need any smart folders. - Wait! One exception I can imagine: I have one folder with offers to customers and would like to let them stay in the folder of the customer itself and have a smart folder which collects them in one place. I have to confess that I am working with OS 10.3.9 until now and therefore my Mail, which i never use, has no smart folders. But I know them from my parents computer and from iTunes (which I use very rarely). That's it Subhash -- .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . computer artwork by subhash Baden bei Wien http://www.subhash.at Apple-Automatisierung Screen | Web | GrafikDesign .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
A-NO-NE Music said: >I am involved with more than 10 active beta test lists. Constantly, >more than 2 or 3 products are close to shipping so my mail browsing >priority changes day to day. This is the reason. But doesn't this mean you could be helped by 'smart folders' or similar solutions under some circumstances? My main reason for not reading mailing lists in folder is it doesn't work well to sort by subject as typically there are soon thousands of messages in a specific folder. Of course I can already filter with "Show only", which does help somewhat, but a 'smart folder' could also catch variations of the subject line or groups several discussions together. Today I use a search scrit for this (find similar subjects). Any technology that helps me speed up ignoring what I'm not interested in and highlights what I'm interested in, is beneficial. PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Mikael Byström / 2006/03/23 / 02:01 PM wrote: >Would you care to describe your >workflow? What types of email do you receive and send? Business, mailing >lists, private? What are the volume of messages? My daily volume is about 300-500 excluding another 500 SPAM. Unfortunately, last couple versions of SPAMSieve has been missing all the SPAMs which sender address is mine, and I was going to write about it to Michael. By the way, I don't have my address in the AddressBook, of course. I am involved with more than 10 active beta test lists. Constantly, more than 2 or 3 products are close to shipping so my mail browsing priority changes day to day. This is the reason. -- - Hiro [PROTECTED] <[PROTECTED]> <[PROTECTED]>
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Hiro said: >Mikael Byström / 2006/03/22 / 12:39 PM wrote: > >>One conclusion I made from the "RMW in the browser" discussion is that >>the recent messages listing seem to be a vital part of how PowerMail >>users interact with their email messages. At least for users being on >>this list. >>It's also true for me. Without it, I may have never have chosen PowerMail. > > >Interesting. I never felt using that feature. When I tried it, I >didn't feel it benefits my workflow so I never opened RMW again. computer artwork by subhash said: >So did I. Thanks for sharing your experiences. Would you care to describe your workflow? What types of email do you receive and send? Business, mailing lists, private? What are the volume of messages? Do you also think that you would have no use for saveable searches in the form of 'smart folders' á la the 'smart playlists' in iTunes or 'smart folders' in Mail? Personally I have business-oriented correspondence: about 3-15 incoming and outgoing every workday, Mailing lists: 350-500 messages per day, most *not* ending up in the RMW, because how I've setup my filters. This way I can choose what mailing list and current subjects I have time for and adjust filters accordingly. Spam: 50 per day, almost all get trashed by SpamSieve (currently 99.8% correct). Private messages are typically 2-8 per day. Personally my workflow varies, but usually have an email session in the morning, when I review the Recent Messages by scanning the subjects, usually I have 30-40 messages there, but I ignore those that don't need immediate attention and focus on the 4-5 that are most important to me and my business. When I have replied to those I write new outgoing messages, usually 2-8 or so, possibly not finishing all of them. Then I respond to those left in the RMW that I feel need a response. During the rest of the day, I either don't check for messages except for when I expect important ones and if so I ignore mailing list addresses (which I keep separate). If I need, which is common, I search for info in mailing list folders half an hour to an hour every day as well as on google. Sometimes I check for messages every 3 minutes or so, but usually only for when I'm expecting specific responses on business related messages or mailing list responses. So maybe I use email 2-3 hours a day, occasionally a little less, sometimes 2-3 hours every third day or so. I don't try to catchup. This of course means that a majority of my 249071 messages are unread. From time to time I archive folders that I don't use and remove them from the DB. PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Re(2): Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
[A-NO-NE Music <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 23.3.2006 um 9:19 Uhr:] >I >didn't feel it benefits my workflow so I never opened RMW again. So did I. -- http://www.subhash.at
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Mikael Byström / 2006/03/22 / 12:39 PM wrote: >One conclusion I made from the "RMW in the browser" discussion is that >the recent messages listing seem to be a vital part of how PowerMail >users interact with their email messages. At least for users being on >this list. >It's also true for me. Without it, I may have never have chosen PowerMail. Interesting. I never felt using that feature. When I tried it, I didn't feel it benefits my workflow so I never opened RMW again. -- - Hiro [PROTECTED] <[PROTECTED]> <[PROTECTED]>
Re: Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Mikael Byström said: > It's "virtual" in the sense that the messages are actually stored (from >the user standpoint at least) in "concrete" folders, often in a well- >known folder structure created by the user him/herself. Should better have read: "It's "virtual" in the sense that the messages shown in the RMW are actually stored..." And the word "work" fell away here: >MAIL FILTERS >Filters are different because they typically at least >· *work* on concrete messages, ie on the messages themselves, rather than on a virtual representation PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
Identifying the problems that 'smart' folders may solve part 1
Please, pretty please take part in this discussion! One conclusion I made from the "RMW in the browser" discussion is that the recent messages listing seem to be a vital part of how PowerMail users interact with their email messages. At least for users being on this list. It's also true for me. Without it, I may have never have chosen PowerMail. Another main reason for me is because I think PowerMail don't get into the way of my interaction with my email much. Behind that feat is that PowerMail has a simple yet powerful way to handle large amount of messages and that the interface generally is quite intuitive to move about in the email browser space. It's not without glitches and contradictions, however. I have been a vocal supporter in the past (already in 2003) of "smart" folders in the fashion to fuse saveable search criteria and the recent mail window. RECENT MAIL WINDOW My reasons, some of which was repeated in the "RMW in browser" discussion, is that the RMW is a useful feature of PowerMail and vital in daily message interaction, but that it does have some problems: 1. It's cumbersome or even impossible to affect exactly what ends up there as the settings are hardwired. The wishes of the user of what to put or not to put there may also be different from day to day. 2. Message listings are not retained between restarts.** 3. User must chose between, not removing messages, removing all read or removing all. 4. The Message listing is not scriptable. 5. __ **Back in 2003 Jérôme suggested that searching could replace the functionality of unretained messages between restarts. While this is true for simple setups, the search result for "date received" would also show all the messages that didn't end up in the RMW because the user set his filters to not include them, for whatever reason. I have several filters set that way because I only want the really important things in the RMW. It's not possible to repeat that effect with searches today. It's important to note that the RMW is different in concept and characteristics than the browser. · It's "virtual" in the sense that the messages are actually stored (from the user standpoint at least) in "concrete" folders, often in a well- known folder structure created by the user him/herself. · The recent mail window, to my knowledge, doesn't rely on Foxtrot(TM) technology, but filters affect what doesn't end up there. SEARCH RESULTS WINDOWS The Search Results Windows are also "virtual", but · they are based on Foxtrot(TM) technology and therefore... · rely on the search index. So results are typically somewhat different. The main problems of searches are: 1. They are limited on what is actually stored in the search index, i.e. "words" and not complete strings or parts of strings, sometimes making it hard to or even impossible to be sure you have found all the messages you want. Typically this means search results are broader than intended. This is not always a big problem, but it can be. 2. The Search dialog doesn't completely reflect the nature of the indexed searches, sometimes leading the user to expect results that are not possible to achieve. 3. The searches are not saveable, making it cumbersome to repeat a set of searches on a daily basis. 4. __ 2 MORE TECHNOLOGIES We also have 2 more technologies at our disposal: · The "view all", "view unread" or "view drafts" setting, which most often does exactly what is says. Sometime the current setting is not reflected so well in the interface. · The "Show only" filter in the browser, which work also on parts of a word or string, but only in the folder where the filtering string of characters was entered. As of today there are few bugs at play too, but that's beyond the scope here. MAIL FILTERS Filters are different because they typically at least · on concrete messages, ie on the messages themselves, rather than on a virtual representation (The exception being affecting what is not in the RMW) The main email filter problems are: 1. The list can over time become quite unwieldy to manage. 2. It's hard to always remember exactly what a filter does and why, 3, It's even more hard to know what to expect how it will work on actual messages (that may or may not contain what you expect). So setting up effective filters is not always a piece of cake. 4. You have to look at and analyze headers in order to get full effectiveness. Something not all know enough of to do easily. 5. ___ DOES SMART FOLDERS SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS? So, if the above mentioned problems are indeed problems to deal with, do 'smart' folders solve them? Well, if we're talking about 'virtual' smart folders that seek to fuse RMW with searches I think that 2 and 3 of Recent Mail Window problems may be fully solved. 1 and 4 could be solved, but needs more than just 'smart' folders. The Searches problems 2 and 3 may be fully solved, given the interface of setting up and saing searches is also improved to give realistic user expectatio
