> "Using a mailing list makes the posts as quickly accessible as one's email
provider can muster. I find that to be plenty responsive."
That's not what responsive means. He is referring to responsive design.
> "prioritizing access via a computer that is not a free software device (a
"smartphone") is painfully ironic"
actually, smartphones are just as capable of running free software as any
other computer. There are some low-level pieces of software that currently
have no free replacement, but that's also true of most desktops running
Trisquel. Although you choose not to use handheld computers like you
understand most people do, they (smartphones) are not somehow inherently
non-free. So there's no irony here, painful or otherwise.
> "I think that's good. I want to read what people have to say, not what
fancy stuff people pull off in formatting"
Don't brush off the suggestion without first understanding it. There's
nothing necessarily "fancy" about proper communication, and especially the
example he gave was exactly how the forums are thereabout inadequate: You
can't do a block quote. If the forums did have this basic formatting feature,
you would no less "read what people have to say". For most people, it would
make it *easier* to read what someone has to say, by giving clear visual
context to the conversation so we can stop deciphering makeshift ASCII
equivalents and get back to our lives. If it happens to end up looking better
while we're at it, that's another thing - but unlike style, good design is
necessary.
> "You are claiming to speak for what "most people" are used to but providing
no evidence of how you arrive at your conclusion that you're accurately
summarizing their views."
The non-combative way of saying this is “I disagree that most people are
not used to forums embedded within Drupal. Can you prove that?”
I, for one, agree that Drupal-embedded forums are rare, and rightfully so. I
would make the same speculation that average users would find it relatively
unintuitive.
> “Style strikes me as inconsequential both because with a mailing list
gateway I can make the posts look as I wish (including getting proper
threading information) without altering anyone else's ability to do the
same,”
Clearly the design of the website doesn't apply to you, since you don't use
the website – so leave it to people who use the website to comment on this.
> “and because style strikes me as entirely subjective.”
Style _is_ completely subjective – good design is less so. He is referring
to good design, which is about function, not beauty - if the text is hard to
read, it's hard to read. Design is not a trivial matter and is worthy of
discussion.
> “I don't think taking away something we're attached to is going to make
for a good suggestion”
Since we're being subjective, yes – it often does make a good suggestion.
Things that people are used to get taken away all the time, which is why we
have progress. No one is suggesting taking something away without replacing
it – so be sure to acknowledge the software suggestions he gave. If you
think they are all inferior to this one, comment on that. Or rather: provide
evidence of how you arrive at your conclusion, as you put it.
> “Consider providing a set of changes specified as a CSS for the
forums.”
If it were this simple, the suggestion would be moot. CSS is for style, but
only goes so far with design – it is fundamental problems with the
underlying HTML-generating software that are being addressed. Once that's
brought up to date, we can all tweak CSS to our liking.
Of course, this one is just my opinion – you may not agree that the forum
software is relatively primitive. It may be possible that massaging the
current system will work.
