[Tickets #6825] Re: OR-combination for flags

[bugs at horde.org]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS NOT MONITORED.

Ticket URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/6825
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ticket             | 6825
 Updated By         | xk3 at mompl.org
 Summary            | OR-combination for flags
 Queue              | IMP
 Version            | 4.2
 Type               | Enhancement
 State              | Feedback
 Priority           | 1. Low
 Milestone          |
 Patch              |
 Owners             | Michael Slusarz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


xk3 at mompl.org (2008-06-07 08:27) wrote:

Just read my earlier post again and think I should clarify the relation
between the different versions of search:

>     (and/or) and (and)   <    and/or    <   (and/or) and/or (and/or)
<    ??

The order I gave represents the usefulness (in my eyes!) of the original
search, Michael´s patched search, and my proposed search, not their
expressiveness.

Michael´s patched version describes a set of searches not completely
covering the original, so no backward compatibility. However, it has
increased usability by exhibiting a better comprehensibility for the
users.

The proposed version is a superset of both the original and the Michael´s,
so backward compatibility is given (once the save format is handled),
although it has a slightly more complex GUI. For me, it is a good trade-off
between expressiveness and usability.

I vote for my version ;o)) But I would be happy with Michael´s version as
well, which is a clean approach seen in many mail clients. I just tested
current CVS and everything works well.

>> Furthermore two little glitches in the current GUI:
>>  - In "recent searches", the flags are not mentioned.
> This has been fixed as a result of the new code [..]

Yes, fixed. Talking about enhancements, may I suggest to delete empty
search fields from this display (and storage): they are unnecessary
clustering the string with, e.g., "To for ´´ in INBOX", and new searches
have a lot of empty fields to offer quick access to the different header
fields.


  Martin