Re: Dangerous space bar key (was: Preventing the user shooting themself in the foot)
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:49:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre ra...@free.fr wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one, rather than moving to the next and marking it read. This way, you're acknowledging the message as read once you've actually read it, rather than having notmuch mark it read before you've actually read it. I agree. I think it's up to the user to define whether he read the message. In fact as a consequence, I have no use of the 'unread' tag. I would like to argue very strongly in favor of the current behavior of the unread tag (since I'm actually the one that designed it). I want the unread flag to always just be handled automatically, being automatically removed when I view a message without me having to do anything. If users want to have tags that they manually control, they should just define those tags in the new.tags config. jamie. pgpwMQ1Brm5Zr.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: Dangerous space bar key (was: Preventing the user shooting themself in the foot)
Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Jul 07 at 1:40 pm: On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:49:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre ra...@free.fr wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one, rather than moving to the next and marking it read. This way, you're acknowledging the message as read once you've actually read it, rather than having notmuch mark it read before you've actually read it. I agree. I think it's up to the user to define whether he read the message. In fact as a consequence, I have no use of the 'unread' tag. I would like to argue very strongly in favor of the current behavior of the unread tag (since I'm actually the one that designed it). I want the unread flag to always just be handled automatically, being automatically removed when I view a message without me having to do anything. If users want to have tags that they manually control, they should just define those tags in the new.tags config. What I'm suggesting is no more or less automatic than the current behavior. It's just a slight tweak to the order in which things happen: that SPC could remove the unread tag and then move to the next message, rather than the other way around. In effect, the read tag would indicate that you've seen the bottom of the message, not just the top. It's also possible I would have less trouble if SPC didn't automatically go to the next thread. The problem I have with the current behavior is that I often find myself accidentally marking messages as read because notmuch showed me a message I wasn't expecting. This is compounded by the lack of visual feedback when this happens (e.g., the search results don't update to indicate that anything has changed, and even if they did, I probably wouldn't notice that the message *had* been unread). ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: Dangerous space bar key (was: Preventing the user shooting themself in the foot)
On Jul 5, 2011 4:23 PM, Matthieu Lemerre ra...@free.fr wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:03:51 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre ra...@free.fr wrote: I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read threads back and forth, but sometimes I might read stuff to quickly and archive a thread without wanting it. It is then complex to find it back (especially if the thread contained a single message and I hit space before actually reading the message, so I can't find it again). As a workaround, I have changed the space key function notmuch-show-advance-and-archive to not archive the thread if we are at the end of the thread, but to just do nothing. Thus I have to expicitely archive the thread when I have finished reading it, which I find much safer. I completely agree with your discomfort with the current function bound to space. I don't like it at all, and I similarly rebound space to be a much more sensible function: [...] Notice I also made it so that this does not exit the current thread view. I patched notmuch to use exactly the same function... Given that we are two people who independently requested for this behaviour, I think this should at least be a customisable option, and imo the default should do nothing and not archive the thread because of this dangerous behaviour. And, hitting 'a' instead of space to go to the next thread is the same number of keypresses... Make that two and a half (I haven't actually replaced this function, but only for lack of time). Had I replaced it, though, there are two variations I would have tried. Have you guys considered these and, if so, any thoughts? * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one, rather than moving to the next and marking it read. This way, you're acknowledging the message as read once you've actually read it, rather than having notmuch mark it read before you've actually read it. notmuch's eagerness to mark things read has always bothered me. For example notmuch-show-archive-thread has the side-effect of marking the first message of the next thread read (which I may not even know exists!). An acknowledgement-based approach seems like it would address problems like this (so would better visual feedback, but that's another issue). * At the end of the thread, return to the index view. This way, if you want to archive the thread, you can still just press 'a', but if you don't, you're already set to navigate to another thread. ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: Dangerous space bar key (was: Preventing the user shooting themself in the foot)
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:03:51 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: Non-text part: multipart/signed On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre ra...@free.fr wrote: I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read threads back and forth, but sometimes I might read stuff to quickly and archive a thread without wanting it. It is then complex to find it back (especially if the thread contained a single message and I hit space before actually reading the message, so I can't find it again). As a workaround, I have changed the space key function notmuch-show-advance-and-archive to not archive the thread if we are at the end of the thread, but to just do nothing. Thus I have to expicitely archive the thread when I have finished reading it, which I find much safer. I completely agree with your discomfort with the current function bound to space. I don't like it at all, and I similarly rebound space to be a much more sensible function: [...] Notice I also made it so that this does not exit the current thread view. I patched notmuch to use exactly the same function... Given that we are two people who independently requested for this behaviour, I think this should at least be a customisable option, and imo the default should do nothing and not archive the thread because of this dangerous behaviour. And, hitting 'a' instead of space to go to the next thread is the same number of keypresses... Matthieu ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: Dangerous space bar key (was: Preventing the user shooting themself in the foot)
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre ra...@free.fr wrote: I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read threads back and forth, but sometimes I might read stuff to quickly and archive a thread without wanting it. It is then complex to find it back (especially if the thread contained a single message and I hit space before actually reading the message, so I can't find it again). As a workaround, I have changed the space key function notmuch-show-advance-and-archive to not archive the thread if we are at the end of the thread, but to just do nothing. Thus I have to expicitely archive the thread when I have finished reading it, which I find much safer. I completely agree with your discomfort with the current function bound to space. I don't like it at all, and I similarly rebound space to be a much more sensible function: (defun notmuch-show-advance () Advance through messages in a thread. (interactive) (let ((end-of-this-message (notmuch-show-message-bottom))) (cond ;; Ideally we would test `end-of-this-message' against the result ;; of `window-end', but that doesn't account for the fact that ;; the end of the message might be hidden, so we have to actually ;; go to the end, walk back over invisible text and then see if ;; point is visible. ((save-excursion (goto-char (- end-of-this-message 1)) (notmuch-show-move-past-invisible-backward) ( (point) (window-end))) ;; The bottom of this message is not visible - scroll. (scroll-up nil)) ((not (= end-of-this-message (point-max))) ;; This is not the last message - move to the next visible one. (notmuch-show-next-open-message)) ))) Notice I also made it so that this does not exit the current thread view. jamie. pgpK0Gv7ODCdG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
