Hi Allie, Apologies if this comes to the list more than once. I had issues sending it the first time.
On 5/30/05, Allie Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you use multiple accounts or just one account? Do you have all your > accounts expanded? Three accounts, all expanded for the most part. > Seeing the folders grouped together makes for a much easier appraisal > of the folders containing new messages. I can then select the folder > that I wish to browse as a priority. I'm certainly not saying get rid of the folder view, but I am suggesting having a tab just for this doesn't afford much more than the regular account view does. Even if you have multiple levels of folders, presumably they're all related. TB! will tell you the unread message count and boldface the highest level folder, which should be mostly sufficient. > Alt-VDU > . . . > CTRL-Alt-<right arrow> > <Ctrl><right arrow> > <Ctrl><]> > > will all take you to the next unread message in the message list. I've > configured customise to use 'N'. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I can't stand having to type all of these commands. And this was the gist of my previous message. I know it's possible to find the unread messages, but it's an extra step that shouldn't be required. 9Val was looking for such deficiencies. If the ultimate goal is to view the unread message, then requiring an extra step to do so is counter-productive. > If you're in threaded view you often appreciate a message better when > you can quickly review the messages further up in the thread. Messages > that were previously read/scanned. Agreed, so perhaps the feature could maintain the thread for context. I believe either Apple's Mail or Entourage do this, all though my PowerBook isn't readily available to check. But then again, is it really that important? If people quote relevant pieces of previous messages and respond to them, do you really need to re-read the whole message? If someone is reading my post right now, do they really need to read your message beforehand to follow what I'm saying? When following a thread, one of two things have occurred. You have previously read all previous messages in the thread, so they're probably fresh in mind and the provided snippets should make it clear what's being addressed. Or, there are other unread messages in the thread, in which case they'd show up in the proposed unread message view. Thus it would seem the ability to read a whole thread is not absolutely necessary. I'm sure many would disagree, but really, how many threads do you read where upon every new message, you reread the whole thread? If anything, this should be the part in the workflow that requires the user to enter some key sequence to then see the whole thread. In either case, I'd propose keeping the whole thread just for structure. Plus, it seems to address concerns from both sides. > Looks like you need to have a look at the ticker and the virtual folder > that goes with it. The ticker is too annoying for me. I don't want me email to be interrupting me. I want to check my email when I'm ready to be interrupted :-) > It's not what you may personally wish for but it doesn't make it not > make sense. I see a lot of sense in it and personally wish not to see > only a list of unread message in each folder. If I wish to see only > unread messages, then the ticker virtual folder which groups them > together is, IMO, a lot more appropriate. You've presented some good points and perhaps "not make sense" was a bit harsh. If we're only going to appease one group however, then perhaps the tab should be dumped. I still don't see this "unread" tab as adding anything that the current account view does not offer. I'm certainly aware that you may not have all folders expanded, but I would suspect that for folders you expect important messages to arrive in, that you do. Furthermore, even if they are collapsed, my point about related folders at the start of the discussion holds. At the end of the day, there are just two tabs to present the same information, albeit in condensed forms. I think something as important as a tab on the main UI should add something new. > > This concept of only folders with unread messages is neither > > intuitive nor supported by the tab's context. But, like I said, if > > this is the correct behavior, then the tab should be renamed at the > > very least. > > Renamed perhaps. <shrug> Oddly enough, this is probably where I disagree with you most. Apathy towards an issue such as this is just poor HCI. The tab is not intuitive at all -- not by context and not by name. The only indication that this is for "unread" folders only is by the "virtual" tab. "All" and "Unread" can both be applied to messages and the folders (although, as I stated previously, an unread folder proper makes no sense). The "Virtual" tab is the only thing indicating that these tabs are not for messages. The UI should be intuitive, not cryptic. In an MUA, messages are king. Folders are subservient to messages, making messages easier to read. For most people, I would imagine, the terms "all" and "unread" would be applied to messages, not folders. Expecting users to know what virtual folders are in order to figure out these tabs is poor design, IMHO. As another beef with the tabs, they're variably sized. Arguably, the "all" tab is the most important, yet it has the smallest target for clicking. The tabs should be evenly-sized (if anything, the "all" tab should be the largest) and occupy the full client area available to them. Currently, the tabs take up less than half the space afforded to them. -- Kevin ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.5.21 | '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/
