Re: (SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards
Hi Curtis, ML That's an interesting observation. You mean OE, Outlook and ML Eudora can't format the messages correctly? Are you referring ML to HTML mail? Could you be more specific? Take a look at this: [example snipped] Readable? Terrible if you ask me. Now if this was a chain letter between capable TB! users then this would never happen. In fact, simply hitting forward each time with TB! still would not produce such lousy formatting. Oh! Now you do remind me of the terrible old days I had with OE and Eudora. Looks like I'm forgetting them quickly. Well, just as well. I certainly don't have any nostalgic feeling for them. -- Best regards, Ming-Li mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: (SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards
Hi Jast, I think I'm an exception here then ;-) [your story snipped] I still think you're the exception, : but it's a good story. It's encouraging to know you and tracer have no trouble introducing TB to novice users. (Well, my wife likes TB, too, but I don't think that counts since I'm doing all the management (filters, address book, etc.) for we share the same computer.) I'll try it some day. -- Best regards, Ming-Li mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: (SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards
Hi Allie, Microplanet Gravity does a good job of that. In fact it's superior in quite a few respects to Forte' Agent and I was using it instead of Agent for some time. Forte' Agent's superior basic usability features won out in the end. It's just so nice and *comfortable* to use. Tried Gravity a few times with various versions, and always came back to Agent before long. I have no use for many of its fancy stuff (graphic database and the like), and it seemed to be a tad buggy. Agent, on my systems (yes, even on those notoriously buggy early versions of Chinese Windows), has always been rock solid. Gravity seems to have the edge now in the mainstream circles. Agent seems to have the edge in the hardcore, savvy user circles although other clients like X-News come into the picture. I tried X-News a while back, and it stayed on my system much longer than Gravity. It has some innovative features that truly make the newsreading experience enjoyable. The big minus? It's an online reader and the author makes clear he has no intention to add true offline capability to it. I need an offline reader, so it's out after I switch to Win2k. I guess I'm simply spoiled by Agent. When I try a new one, I expect nothing less than what Agent could provide, and any feature (that I use) missing in the new software appears to be glaring to me. It's not fair, I know. I just couldn't help it. I vividly remembering getting frustrated in how to to setup Agent for e-mail and to create a few folders. Unbelievably unintuitive at the time. :-) Really? I can't believe it. I must have used it for too long to remember. You do have a point there although TB!'s method of dealing with multiple accounts is quite uncommon. The interface is also elegant and very clear in design. I like that, too. ML I agree, however, that if somehow RITLabs could find a way to ML smooth the learning curve of TB, it could be more easily ML recommended to casual users. Funny, what attracts me to TB! is how much you can do with it with relative ease and not having to learn too much to do so. We tend to confuse a poor help system with difficulty in learning. Take the templates and filtering for instance. Very powerful and easy to learn. Poorly documented however. If you're not willing to experiment and learn through simple trial and error, you're pretty much in the cold. :-( TB! needs a good help file. This would take it a long way. I agree with you that TB's help system could use a lot of help, and a good one would take it a long way. I meant more than that by saying RIT needs to smooth the learning curve for TB. Some of its features are simply non-intuitive, and a new user find herself pressing F1 all the time, no matter how exhaustive and helpful the Help System is, she might get frustrated. Example no. 1, you can't search messages without a search string (can't search by date only). Yeah, it could be worked around, but it's unintuitive. Example no. 2, how do you sort the folders? Yeah, it can be done, but it's unintuitive, and the result is a bit awkward (the system folders--Inbox, Outbox, etc.--are sorted, too). It's also very different from most other email software where folders are auto-sorted. I appreciate TB gives me the power to control exactly how my folders should be lined up, but I think auto-sorting should be default, or at least there should be an option to allow auto-sorting. Example no. 3, filters. TB touts its filtering function as the best, and it's indeed the most powerful among all I've tried. But I couldn't understand why it force you to move messages to a folder when the filter is applied. I just couldn't figure out a way to set up a filter that could be applied to various folders without moving the messages (to assign colors to some messages, e.g.). I could be prooved wrong, but I think people attracted to TB are mostly looking for their 2nd (3rd, etc.) email clients. Those who touch computer or use the Internet for the first time would mostly go for the freebies already on their system. Therefore, to understand their expectation is important. Unless you're MS, you can't force people to learn your tricks. Also important, is for TB to provide a better mail import capability. It takes too much trouble to switch over from OE5 (the wizard works, but needs too much hand tweaking), and it's a big hurdle for many people. ML There're some other users who don't want to learn anything new, ML and I think they would be better served by OE or its peers. True. But without even going into TB!'s more powerful features, it's default, very basic, design philosophy of control over what one is sending to the recipient is a great one. What you see before you hit the send button being what the recipient will get, combined with effective means to optimize this are distressingly rare qualities among the clients out there including the leading ones. In fact the
Re: (SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards
Hi Ming-Li, On 10 July 2000 at 06:58:33 GMT -0700 (which was 14:58 where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "(SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards": ML I appreciate TB gives me the power to control exactly how my ML folders should be lined up, but I think auto-sorting should be ML default, or at least there should be an option to allow ML auto-sorting. Perhaps. For my own use an alphabetic sorting of the folders would make no sense. I maintain a large and hand honed tree of carefully arranged and nested folders. ML ... I just couldn't figure out a way to set up a filter that could ML be applied to various folders without moving the messages (to ML assign colors to some messages, e.g.). This usefulness of this belies the simplicity of the request. As filters become more and more capable, so tying them to moving mail makes less and less sense with each enhancement. Hey - Stef and Max - how about it? Time to cut that umbilical yet? ML I could be prooved wrong, but I think people attracted to TB are ML mostly looking for their 2nd (3rd, etc.) email clients... I don't think you will be (proved wrong). True. But without even going into TB!'s more powerful features, it's default, very basic, design philosophy of control over what one is sending to the recipient is a great one. What you see before you hit the send button being what the recipient will get, combined with effective means to optimize this are distressingly rare qualities among the clients out there including the leading ones. In fact the leading ones, ie, OE, Outlook and Eudora fall flat on their faces in this regard and hence I avoid them like the plague. ML That's an interesting observation. You mean OE, Outlook and Eudora ML can't format the messages correctly? Are you referring to HTML ML mail? Could you be more specific? I can shed some light. You don't have to look as far as HTML mail. Because these other clients default to using variable pitch fonts any layout you may give a text message hasn't a single chance of turning out looking as you sent it when it arrives at the destination. Not so TB text mail. IMNSHO when it comes to text layout, TB is one of (if not _the_) best there is. There are another couple of newbie down-sides to that aspect of TB's functionality that usually elicit howls of derision: fixed fonts, virtual space and no discernable paragraph delimiters (CR/CR isn't intuitively obvious). Sadly these aspects are compulsory for the plus-side plain text formatting capabilities. I believe it's a good trade off - it's not always a shared opinion, however (and I don't want to get "into one" with any one over it). -- Cheers, .\\arck Marck D. Pearlstone, Consultant Software Engineer Moderator TBUDL / TBBETA www: http://www.silverstones.com PGP key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=GET%20MARCKKEY *--- | Using The Bat! 1.45 Beta/5 S/N 14F4B4B2 | under Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 *--- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: (SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards
Hi Marck, ML I appreciate TB gives me the power to control exactly how my ML folders should be lined up, but I think auto-sorting should be ML default, or at least there should be an option to allow ML auto-sorting. Perhaps. For my own use an alphabetic sorting of the folders would make no sense. I maintain a large and hand honed tree of carefully arranged and nested folders. Me too. I have quite a few folders in Chinese names and TB can't sort them right anyway. My point is, most average users expect auto-sorting behavior (for that's what they have in most other software) and they'll have a hard time figuring out how to make TB do that. Some of them will be very disappointed when they find out the "auto" part is impossible. Given my assumption (which could be wrong) that people who want and appreciate absolute folder order control are, generally speaking, more advanced users, I suggest TB to adopt auto-sorting as default and make manual ordering optional. ML That's an interesting observation. You mean OE, Outlook and ML Eudora can't format the messages correctly? Are you referring ML to HTML mail? Could you be more specific? I can shed some light. You don't have to look as far as HTML mail. Because these other clients default to using variable pitch fonts any layout you may give a text message hasn't a single chance of turning out looking as you sent it when it arrives at the destination. Not so TB text mail. IMNSHO when it comes to text layout, TB is one of (if not _the_) best there is. There are another couple of newbie down-sides to that aspect of TB's functionality that usually elicit howls of derision: fixed fonts, virtual space and no discernable paragraph delimiters (CR/CR isn't intuitively obvious). Sadly these aspects are compulsory for the plus-side plain text formatting capabilities. I believe it's a good trade off - it's not always a shared opinion, however (and I don't want to get "into one" with any one over it). I agree with you mostly, except that I think this whole thing should be made optional. My point was, OE and its peers serve average users with very basic needs pretty well. Let's face it, not many people bother to format their email, and many of those who do use HTML mail. We might think perfect spacing and indenting are more important, others might think being able to mark a word bold is more important (and they think using _these words are bold_ is an awkward alternative). A sad but true fact is, I rarely bother to indent or use caret marks (to highlight) anymore (unless I'm sure the recipients use mono fonts as well, such as people in this group), because I don't know whether it would be presented as I intended in the recipient's email client. Heck, in the Fidonet era, I could even hand-draw tables in email, and there were all sorts of wonderful ASCII graphic arts in the signature lines. I no long do. Given the ubiquitous usage of proportional fonts in email clients, I even think the claim that TB format messages perfectly is a little bit, dare I say, self-serving. -- Best regards, Ming-Li mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: (SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards
ML being able to mark a word bold is more important (and they think ML using _these words are bold_ is an awkward alternative). Come on now, the underscore means "underline" and you use asterisks to indicate bold. :) Actually, I was stunned the first time Word did that formatting for me. I was so used to writing email-style, that I did _something new_ and actually got it underlined. ML A sad but true fact is, I rarely bother to indent or use caret marks ML (to highlight) anymore (unless I'm sure the recipients use mono ML fonts as well, such as people in this group), because I don't know ML whether it would be presented as I intended in the recipient's email ML client. What kills me is when people do the caret underlining with proportional fonts on. Just ridiculous. ML Given the ubiquitous usage of proportional fonts in email clients, I ML even think the claim that TB format messages perfectly is a little ML bit, dare I say, self-serving. I agree, although with the caveat that it does what *I* want, so it does the right thing. :) -tom! -- Hopin' this said *something* useful, [EMAIL PROTECTED] out. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: (SOT) Re: ZDNet Shareware Awards
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:55:39 +0200, SyP wrote: Allie By the way, I ran that above paragraph through my text cleaner Allie and this is what it read: S Did you mean that literally? What text cleaner? There are two that I have used. Text Cleaner : www.comp4learn.com/cleaner and Message Cleaner: http://www.roundhillsoftware.com/MessageCleaner/ -- A.C. Martin [ TB! v1.45 Beta/5 | Win2k Pro ] PGP Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendAlliePGPKey "WYTYSYDG...What You Thought You Saw, You Didn't Get " -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
