In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dierk Haasis [DH] wrote:'
DH> We should be happy to get enhancements *without paying again*.
DH> That is an advantage of software over hardware. Or do you
DH> consider it your right to ask for enhancements in your car
DH> because you paid for it? And I don't mean repairs. I am writing
DH> about complaints that your motor doesn't deliver the power you
DH> want. Or a slightly rougher ride than you expected.
You simply cannot compare, in this way, software to cars and other
such commodities.
DH> Isn't the big advantage of shareware to test it before deciding
DH> to buy it and then complain.
Yes. However, there's nothing wrong with asking for an enhancement.
Ritlabs has a long track record of providing enhancements and new
features without users having to pay extra. I'd certainly take
advantage of this. I certainly have. :)
DH> All this sounds much more harsh than it was originally intended
DH> to be.
Glad to hear. :)
DH> Back to the editor: Leave it as it is but make it possible to
DH> use an external editor.
That's one proposition. However, using an external editor would
lead to the loss of the benefits of an integrated editor. Applying
quick templates is an example.
DH> Not alright it is (shades of Yoda) to tell me about the "wrong"
DH> way of TB's editor. BTW, some of the arguments used pro TB
DH> haven't even been addressed ...
Indeed. I'm really interested in how the current features can be
reconciled with more standard behaviour. The current features being
a really free caret, being able to reflow quoted material, being
able to work so easily with indented text. It's similar to the
frequently expressed desire to be able to use variable width fonts
with the editor.
I had made queries in the past about the editor and was told that it
would be very difficult to make the editor work in a more standard
fashion and yet maintain its current behaviour as an option. An
alternative editor would be a more viable developmental option,
i.e., an approach similar to the fixed width/rich text viewer user
option. It remains to be seen what will be done but I'm quite sure
and hope that something will be done.
Text editing is too fundamental an area for an e-mail client to be
giving newbies a culture shock. IMO, it should ideally be the aim
that what the prospective user is accustomed to is initially
presented and the other functionality included or rather. One should
deviate from this only if it is really necessary or else it could be
to the detriment of the programs wider use. I don't know if this is
the case with the editor even though I so like its current feature
set. I only disagree with those who wish for changes/enhancement
only with regards to their claim that the editor is broken or
backward. It's simply different in approach and is highly
specialized in the interest of properly formatting e-mail and
ensuring that when the sender hits the send button, that the
recipient will receive a nicely formatted message at their end.
Directory Opus is another example in that it's a terrific file
manager, but with an odd, non-standard approach to basic
functionality that had me running in frustration when I initially
tried it. The very same thing is happening with a lot of other
testers. I'm convinced that this isn't necessary and that the
different approaches can be presented in a way that's not so
mysterious to the passing user expecting 'standard/consistent'
behaviour. I, and others have said this much to the developers who
have agreed and are receptive to suggestions.
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
________________________________________________
Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
