On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 00:37 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 12:11 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 10:45 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 23:03 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 22:51 -0400, Local wrote:
On Sun,
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 08:48 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
I'd actually guess not so much actually. You only need one app to
display this kind of information.
ok, probably not the views (apart from the list view, which might be
really useful for any app displaying calendar data), but the
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 00:56 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
Not Zed wrote:
FWIW, and probably not much, we have a design team who addresses this
stuff anyway. They're not active on the hackers list since they don't
hack. I think its a well known fact that engineers (and egads even
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 02:49 +0200, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 05:01, JP Rosevear wrote:
Which is exactly some of the UI has moved away from that mode (in fact
the calendars in 1.5 look more like iCal stuff than anything else). We
do also have a product design team that
i just want to make this very clear. you are making a
wrong decision. basing your arguments off of copying
microsoft shows just how short sighted you are. if i
wanted to use windows, i'd install windows. the point
of OSS software is not to copy the leaders, but to
look at all available options
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 05:01, JP Rosevear wrote:
Which is exactly some of the UI has moved away from that mode (in fact
the calendars in 1.5 look more like iCal stuff than anything else). We
do also have a product design team that is driving changes for us with
usability tests and such. All
FWIW, and probably not much, we have a design team who addresses this stuff anyway. They're not active on the hackers list since they don't hack. I think its a well known fact that engineers (and egads even worse, computer scientists) are the worst people to design UI's - I know i'm a prime
Not Zed wrote:
FWIW, and probably not much, we have a design team who addresses this
stuff anyway. They're not active on the hackers list since they don't
hack. I think its a well known fact that engineers (and egads even
worse, computer scientists) are the worst people to design UI's - I
jeff i'm not insulting you. is it an insult to say
you're ignorant to molecular biology? no. it just
means you don't know anything about it because you
haven't learned it. unless you tell me you've taken
usability classes, conducted focus groups, and have
done much work in interface design as a
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 19:05, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
I have taken courses in usability. I haven't done
usability tests on evolution, but I have no need to
because my basis for comparison has done far more
usability testing than you: Apple and Microsoft.
Microsoft has Outlook, which is
I guess you would need only to support e-d-s API, that's all. You don't
need to write code specific to LDAP or local backends. Or did I
misunderstood what you meant?
I won't use Evolution for the LDAP part, I will use my own code.
There are several reasons for that, mainly :
- ILS
- E-D-S
I very much share the sentiment of dropping the
one-application-does-it-all model. There is a limited number of tasks
than an iterface can be designed to fulfill well. Separate applications
can work together better than a monolithic beast like the old
staroffice. Apple's iApps are a good example
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 19:08 -0700, Jakub Steiner wrote:
I very much share the sentiment of dropping the
one-application-does-it-all model. There is a limited number of tasks
than an iterface can be designed to fulfill well. Separate applications
can work together better than a monolithic beast
why must you insult me? that was completely uncalled for.
Good day.
Jeff
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 21:31, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
i know i've kind of started a flamewar here and that
wasn't my intention.
i'm a developer, a computer scientist, as a matter of
fact. i'm deeply interested in
It is hard to design an interface to do a million things and do them
well.
Which is why we modularized things a bit more.
And which is why the interface never did. Ever. The interface changes depending on your context. If you have mutliple windows open and don't use the component
i know i've kind of started a flamewar here and that
wasn't my intention.
i'm a developer, a computer scientist, as a matter of
fact. i'm deeply interested in usability. it had been
a long time before i got a mac, and the only real push
i had was os x (because the linux-os x transition was
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 19:49 +0200, Damien Sandras wrote:
Conclusion, there is effort duplication : Evolution and GnomeMeeting
will both have their own address book (sharing the same backend which is
better) when there could be only one specialized program to do it.
This was the
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 18:52 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
Where we go in future is another matter. Perhaps apps without a common
shell. That would certainly reduce some of bonobo ui usage (no need
to merge menus any more).
Not entirely. You still have the embedded controls issue (like
JP Rosevear wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 17:08 -0700, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
i envision splitting it up into apps that are well
defined
an addressbook, mail app, and calendar app.
Well, this is kind of whats happened. I mean the mailer, addressbook,
calendar all have their own separate code
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 10:38 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 18:52 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
Where we go in future is another matter. Perhaps apps without a common
shell. That would certainly reduce some of bonobo ui usage (no need
to merge menus any more).
Not entirely.
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 22:55, William Jon McCann wrote:
JP Rosevear wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 17:08 -0700, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
i envision splitting it up into apps that are well
defined
an addressbook, mail app, and calendar app.
Well, this is kind of whats happened. I mean
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 23:05 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 10:38 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 18:52 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
Where we go in future is another matter. Perhaps apps without a common
shell. That would certainly reduce some of bonobo ui
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 05:03, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
the mailer will always depend on the addressbook and
calendar, so
whether you load them into the window or not is
irrelevant.
in fact, I don't see why you wouldn't just load them
into the main shell
window anyway, they're
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 22:58 +0200, Damien Sandras wrote:
the benefit of having an official gnome
addressbook app would be a great benefit anyways. the
way mac os x utilizes the addressbook for aim names in
ichat is simply wonderful.
evolution 1.5 already does that
Le dim, 18/04/2004 à 13:44 -0400, JP Rosevear a écrit :
Yes, and I agree that having one separate application to manage the
contacts in all apps would be better.
I'm currently forced to have an internal address book in GnomeMeeting,
because I don't want to tell people that they have
the mailer will always depend on the addressbook and
calendar, so
whether you load them into the window or not is
irrelevant.
in fact, I don't see why you wouldn't just load them
into the main shell
window anyway, they're loaded!
no sense making the user run 3 apps having each
i envision splitting it up into apps that are well
defined
an addressbook, mail app, and calendar app.
they basically *are* separate applications already,
except they get
embedded into a single window.
evolution doesn't already do this, as is evident by
the fact that it has all these
*nod* this is the way it already works.
Jeff
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 14:53, Nick NoSpam wrote:
I agree that it would be nice if the non-mail functions of Evolution
were split out--but into standalone libraries, not executables.
If this is already the case, press delete now (and sorry for the
On Die , 2004-04-18 at 11:23 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 00:37, Chris Toshok wrote:
built-in support for handling calendar attachments (imip? i can't
remember all the calendar protocols.)
at some point, it will also depend on it for the Followup-Flag feature.
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 19:49 +0200, Damien Sandras wrote:
Le dim, 18/04/2004 13:44 -0400, JP Rosevear a crit :
Yes, and I agree that having one separate application to manage the
contacts in all apps would be better.
I'm currently forced to have an internal address book in
Perhaps psychological. If we tell to our users you don't have a local
address book in the GnomeMeeting UI, but you can use the GNOME Contacts
software to manage your GnomeMeeting contacts, it will be ok. However,
if we tell them they have to run and install Evolution to manage their
Why don't I just give up hacking on Evolution and let you do it all,
since you seem to know so goddamn much then?
Jeff
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 15:43, Rodney Dawes wrote:
On Die , 2004-04-18 at 11:42 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
doesn't seem to bother the average user, if it did... there
This was the purpose of e-d-s, don't confuse the UI of the app with the
data storage mechanism. The gnome meeting guys are already looking at
using the e-d-s data storage mechanism. Whether the gui part is in
I'm the GnomeMeeting guys ;)
And GnomeMeeting is awesome!
Evolution or a
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 22:58 +0200, Damien Sandras wrote:
Evolution or a separate app makes little difference.
Perhaps psychological. If we tell to our users you don't have a local
address book in the GnomeMeeting UI, but you can use the GNOME Contacts
software to manage your
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 10:35, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
the mailer will always depend on the addressbook and calendar
Aside: I get why it's tightly linked to addressbook, but why calendar?
AfC
___
evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
built-in support for handling calendar attachments (imip? i can't
remember all the calendar protocols.)
Chris
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 11:21 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 10:35, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
the mailer will always depend on the addressbook and calendar
Aside: I
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 15:41 -0700, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
is there any plan to split evolution up into separate
entities that manage calendars, contacts, and email
individually? i use a mac every day, so the
difference between the ical/mail/addressbook combo is
quite apparent when
On Pre , 2004-04-16 at 14:27 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 15:41 -0700, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
is there any plan to split evolution up into separate
entities that manage calendars, contacts, and email
individually? i use a mac every day, so the
difference
Rodney Dawes wrote:
It's not a replacement, because it's a subset. Evolution is the gnome
address book,
calendar, and mail app. There is no doubt about that really. It's
basically been that
way for a while now, and we will be in the gnome.org desktop release
soon as well. The
only reason we
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 20:08, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
i envision splitting it up into apps that are well
defined
an addressbook, mail app, and calendar app.
the mailer will always depend on the addressbook and calendar, so
whether you load them into the window or not is irrelevant.
in fact, I
40 matches
Mail list logo
