Hi!!! I do enjoy reading those emails, but really! isn't there any way to filter out the "out of office" autoreplies? These autoreplies are now quite standard and used more and more often. But do we care in the mailing list that someone in the list is out of the office?
my two cents... Wilfrid Legoussouart [e] wlegoussou...@gmail.com On 22 July 2011 19:50, <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org> wrote: > ********************************************************************* > WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST > ********************************************************************* > > > From: "Julien Viard" <jul...@10collective.com.au> > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:49:26 -0700 > Subject: Out of Office Reply Re: WSG Digest > > Hello! > > I'm out of the office until Monday 15th August. > > I'll respond to all emails on my return. > > For more urgent assistance, please contact Georgie at > geor...@10collective.com.au or call the office on 03 9935 9409. > > Cheers, > Julien > > ********************************************************************* > From: kirst...@ag.nsw.gov.au > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:01:55 +1000 > Subject: AUTO: Kirsten Tilgals is out of the office (returning 08/08/2011) > > > > I am out of the office until 08/08/2011. > > Thanks for your message. If you are emailing from within the Art Galler > y of > NSW regarding the Gallery's website, please email 'Web Team'. Or you ca > n > contact Brooke Carson-Ewart broo...@ag.nsw.gov.au or Jonathan Cooper > jonath...@ag.nsw.gov.au directly > > > Note: This is an automated response to your message "WSG Digest" sent > on > 21/07/2011 7:48:41 PM. > > This is the only notification you will receive while this person is awa > y. > > > ********************************************************************* > From: "Andy Dempster" <ademps...@sme.org> > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:02:43 -0400 > Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest > > I will be out of the office until Wednesday, July 27th. I will get back > to you then. > > > > > > > ********************************************************************* > From: "Alan C. Whiteman" <acwhite...@visualis.us> > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:27:29 -0700 > Subject: Re: WSG Digest > > > > > On 07/21/2011 09:48 AM, wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: > > ********************************************************************* > > WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST > > ********************************************************************* > > > > > > From: "Stevio"<redea...@freeuk.com> > > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:45:33 +0100 > > Subject: Modal forms - what to call them? > > > > I am working on a CMS and within it, when a user wishes to add a record, > I > > give them two options: > > 1) Add record - this goes to a new web page with a form. > > 2) Add record modally - this brings up a modal dialog box containing the > > form which allows them to add the record without leaving the page they > were > > on (this page lists the current records). This uses jQuery. Once they add > > the record, the list of records is updated using AJAX. > > > > However, what user-friendly descriptive name should I use for the modal > > forms? I doubt many people know the word modal. Any suggestions? > > > > It would be laid out as follows: > > Add record (pop-up dialog box)? > > > > Clicking on 'Add record' takes the user to a new page, while clicking on > > 'pop-up dialog box' opens the modal form. > > > > However, I would like something shorter and simpler than 'pop-up dialog > > box'. Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Stephen > > > > > > ********************************************************************* > > From: "Nixon David"<david.ni...@altran-cis.co.uk> > > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:53:41 +0200 > > Subject: RE: [WSG] Modal forms - what to call them? > > > > I usually go with business activity - business function with my modal > > forms (SharePoint) > > e.g. Records - Declare a new record > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > > On Behalf Of Stevio > > Sent: 20 July 2011 16:46 > > To: Web Standards Group > > Subject: [WSG] Modal forms - what to call them? > > > > I am working on a CMS and within it, when a user wishes to add a record, > > I give them two options: > > 1) Add record - this goes to a new web page with a form. > > 2) Add record modally - this brings up a modal dialog box containing the > > form which allows them to add the record without leaving the page they > > were on (this page lists the current records). This uses jQuery. Once > > they add the record, the list of records is updated using AJAX. > > > > However, what user-friendly descriptive name should I use for the modal > > forms? I doubt many people know the word modal. Any suggestions? > > > > It would be laid out as follows: > > Add record (pop-up dialog box)? > > > > Clicking on 'Add record' takes the user to a new page, while clicking on > > 'pop-up dialog box' opens the modal form. > > > > However, I would like something shorter and simpler than 'pop-up dialog > > box'. Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Stephen > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > > ******************************************************************* > > > > > > ********************************************************************* > > From: Hassan Schroeder<has...@webtuitive.com> > > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:18:29 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [WSG] Modal forms - what to call them? > > > > On 7/20/11 8:45 AM, Stevio wrote: > >> I am working on a CMS and within it, when a user wishes to add a record, > I give them two options: > >> 1) Add record - this goes to a new web page with a form. > >> 2) Add record modally - this brings up a modal dialog box containing the > form which allows them > >> to add the record without leaving the page they were on (this page lists > the current records). > >> This uses jQuery. Once they add the record, the list of records is > updated using AJAX. > >> However, I would like something shorter and simpler than 'pop-up dialog > box'. Any thoughts? > > Just curious -- why offer a choice? > > > > Why not just offer the modal version if JS is enabled and the other > > if not? > > > > What is the user benefit of the non-modal option? And is it enough > > to justify introducing an extraneous decision into the workflow? > > > > Will the target user understand the implications of the choices and > > pick one unhesitatingly? Or think "eh? what?" :-) > > > > Just askin' ... > > > > I agree that, from a usability point of view, having only one choice- > one path- offers the best experience. It just sounds more efficient. So, > yes, the modal form (no name) when JS is turned on, and the HTML form > (again, no name) for when JS is off. To the user there is only one form. > > > -- > Regards > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Alan C Whiteman | Visualis Web Design > http://visualis.us | (562) 305-2862 > > > > > [removed attachment: acwhiteman.vcf] > ********************************************************************* > From: Patrick Horgan <phorg...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:05:36 -0700 > Subject: Re: [WSG] Modal forms - what to call them? > > On 07/20/2011 09:43 AM, Stevio wrote: > > User choice basically. They may prefer to see more of a form in its > > own page, or they may prefer to use a modal form to add the record. > > > > If JavaScript is disabled, the system still works fine with the > > non-modal form option. > > > > Take Facebook's current implementation of photos for example. A while > > back they introduced a modal viewing box for images. However, if you > > click F5 to refresh Firefox, you go back to the old style viewing of > > the image in it's own page. Often I do this because I prefer it, other > > times I persist with their viewing box. > That's a really bad example, since that feature is user hostile, the F5 > doesn't work in all browsers, and the same capabilities aren't available > in both modes, for example with the popup much of the page is blocked > and you can't click on links like home, and sometimes after browsing > with the popup you get back where you were, and sometimes you don't. > Please don't use it as an example. It makes you really wonder what > problem they were trying to solve, and you should ask yourself the > same. (Really page designers should always ask themselves that. It > avoids doing something because it's a cool feature you learned about, > but that makes things worse for users.) > > Patrick > > > ********************************************************************* > From: "Stevio" <redea...@freeuk.com> > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:18:42 +0100 > Subject: Re: [WSG] Modal forms - what to call them? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick Horgan" <phorg...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:05 AM > > On 07/20/2011 09:43 AM, Stevio wrote: > >> Take Facebook's current implementation of photos for example. A while > >> back they introduced a modal viewing box for images. However, if you > >> click F5 to refresh Firefox, you go back to the old style viewing of > >> the image in it's own page. Often I do this because I prefer it, other > >> times I persist with their viewing box. > > That's a really bad example, since that feature is user hostile, the F5 > > doesn't work in all browsers, and the same capabilities aren't available > > in both modes, for example with the popup much of the page is blocked > > and you can't click on links like home, and sometimes after browsing > > with the popup you get back where you were, and sometimes you don't. > > Please don't use it as an example. It makes you really wonder what > > problem they were trying to solve, and you should ask yourself the > > same. (Really page designers should always ask themselves that. It > > avoids doing something because it's a cool feature you learned about, > > but that makes things worse for users.) > > To the contrary, I think you strengthen my argument by highlighting the > differences. There are advantages to both the modal and non-modal facebook > implementation of images, and different users may prefer one over the > other, > which is the point I was trying to make. It is not a perfect illustration > of > what I am looking to do and I did not claim it was, so please do not over > examine the comparison. > > If a user choice is clear and makes sense, and is not confusing, then why > not give them that choice? My original intention was not to offer both > choices but I have come to realise as I have developed the system, that if > both options are implemented, then why not allow users to choose. They may > prefer to be working on a page that is non-modal and they can click on > links > like home and have more workspace, or they may prefer to use a modal form > to > quickly add a record. Let's not write off an idea just because it isn't the > way it's normally done. > > Thank you for your thoughts. > > > ************************************************************** > Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ************************************************************** > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
