Hi Steve,
on Friday, November 19, 1999, 12:22:22 AM GMT+0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Steve, please don't call peoples suggestions idiotic especially when
>> it's not necessary.
SL> It was. An understanding of basic UI at the level of around an AOL user
SL> would be all that is required to deduce why the cursor is in the header field.
Wow, are you calling me an "AOL user"? (Please help me someone: isn't
this an insult?) <g>
>> The fact that you felt that way just shows up yourself more than the person
>> you indirectly insulted.
SL> I get it. Attack the person, not the idea. Gee, to think, I had it wrong
SL> this whole time in attacking the idea, not the person. Thanks for the
SL> clarification.
LOL
>> You are so automated and mechanical in your approach to usability
>> issues that it's unbelievable. I have no wish to have any exchanges
>> with you on the issue.
SL> I am so automated and mechanical because I'm right. When you get to a
SL> certain point you come to understand that most, if not all roads, lead to the
SL> same place.
Steve, again: you see this from the POV of someone who lives in the
comuter world. You are right from that POV. However, most people
don't live there. Especially you as the compu-expert have the
possibility to change something for the average user, if you only
listen.
>> Just for the benefit of the minds that exhibit more flexibility and
>> amicability to suggestion:
SL> IE, those who haven't thought it out.
Deja-vu? Comnputer Philosophy? (No, Marck, don't worry, I'm not going
to start again.)
>> b) If one invokes/creates a new mail message using the address book.
[...]
>> far. That's consistency to ones detriment. We are thinking, people
>> here.
SL> Then think, Ali, don't just jump on the bandwagon for a ride and disengage
SL> your brain.
Steve, hoinestly, I cannot figure how this is "attacking the idea" and
not the person. Anyway, I think it is you who is jumping on the
bandwaggon (of those who think that users are stupid and cannot even
go to the header to fill in additional recipients iof they want to).
SL> Tell me, are *all* of the addresses you've ever used in the
SL> addressbook? You've never added one by hand after using the addressbook?
SL> You've never added one by hand from the address book after using it?
Weren't you the one who said in another thread that you don't want the
machine to "think for you" and make suggestions? So, when I give the
command "go to somehwere in the message body" and the cursor still
goes to the header, is it not thinking for me?
SL> Why put it there? Because the program has no way to determine if you're
SL> completely finished with entering addresses or if you're just done adding
SL> addresses from the addressbook/macros.
Exactly. That's why the cursor should go to were I tell it to and not
double-guess.
SL> The logical place for the cursor after that point is in the
SL> headers section.
The logical place for the cursor is to be were I tell it to be. (Am I
repeating myself?)
SL> Furthermore, just because you've entered addresses doesn't mean that the
SL> other functions near those fields are completed.
Right. So I want the programme to double-guess instead of just
following my command.
SL> It is not consistency to one's detriment, it is logical consistency where
SL> an otherwise annoying assumption by the machine would be made.
You are advocating assumption, should you not have noticed.
--
Ciao,
Thomas.
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.37 Beta/3
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
on a Pentium II/350 MHz.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
