>> While you certainly don't want to go to the extreme where it makes
>> the user unproductive, any software developer wouldn't last long if
>> they didn't include some code to help the user avoid mistakes.
> This is extreme as there is no technical reason to do the check. It makes
> the user unproductive because it causes them to jump through one more hoop to
> do what they want.
No hoops to jump through if options have to be turned on to use them.
> I'd rather lose the files the one time I screw up than to have
> to confirm the few thousand+ times I don't.
You may rather lose the files, but there are lots of paranoid people
out there that wouldn't. Their jobs may depend on it. Besides that's
what the "Yes to All" buttons are for. :-)
> I'd rather send out one message without a subject and didn't mean it than
> to have to confirm the few hundred or thousand times I do.
If you only forgot one subject, then you'd only have gotten one
confirmation message.
> Mistakes happen, deal with it, don't dumb it down to where it causes extra
> work.
No extra work at all if all options have to be "turned on" to be used.
>> I agree with you here, but you are stating an extreme case, where they
>> went to the point of making things unproductive IMO. Software should
>> be flexible and provide options.
> It is not an extreme case.
It's an extreme case in that they overdo the confirmations. I'm not
asking for anything like that. Just a simple option that lets me know
if I didn't add a subject, that wouldn't affect you if you didn't turn
the option on.
> Let's put checks on emptying the trash, on parked messages in the
> trash, on deleting messages, on exiting existing messages, on
> deleting addresses from the to line, the cc line, the bcc line,
> deleting the subject, changing the templates, changing the quick
> templates, stopping a search. What other button presses haven't I
> mentioned yet? Now, let's make them all optional. I just named 11
> options so far off the top of my head which all fall in the same
> "idiot-proof" catagory and if I decided to sit here and really go
> through TB and catalog all that I could think of I could fill 2-3
> pages on a normal tabbed option display.
I don't want checks on any of the things you listed either, but if
they were options that I had to turn ON if I wanted them I wouldn't
have a problem with it. No extra work unless you WANT the option. But
the flexibility would be there if I needed it.
Thanks,
Kevin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
