MaXxX, M> Less different functions, while more versatility on existing ones, is M> the key to user-friendliness - and less hassle to manage it, M> concept-wise, too.
It's always a pleasure to see user issues discussed in terms of cognitive load. The question of more commands or more parameters on existing commands, is a good example. Like most cognitive issues, the answer is not likely to be absolute or obvious. Certainly not to me. Another special flag makes sense, but so does a variant of active filtering used by virtual folders. One question to ask is what happens if 10 or 20 more features like this -- all equally clever -- get added? Since the idea of dynamically looking for new types of messages could readily lead to a very long list of possible types, 10 or 20 might be too small a number for this kind of extension. In any event, will the approach scale to accommodate that many? Or will users start finding it all far too cumbersome? My guess is that neither more flags nor more commands are sufficient for this type of feature extension. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301> ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
