[horde] [imp] default reply behavior in dimp/imp

[Michael M Slusarz]

Quoting Eric Jon Rostetter <eric.rostetter at physics.utexas.edu>:

> Quoting D G Teed <donald.teed at gmail.com>:
>
>> There is a saying: if it isn't broken, don't fix it.  I would think
>> it is simple to ask for the IMP reply options for DIMP.  But the
>> developers are devoted to the one button solution.
>
> IMP has a single "button" (link actually).  There is a mouse-over, but it is
> a single "button" which does multiple things.

The IMP standard view hover-over pop-up is actually not a deliberate  
design decision.  It exists simply because the effect is achievable  
entirely via CSS, and we were attempting to avoid use of javascript in  
this instance (since the standard view only uses javascript when there  
is no other means to accomplish an action).  It is actually quite a  
jarring, intrusive effect and is quite annoying UI.  The popup window  
*completely* obscures the fact that the user should simply be clicking  
on the "Reply" link on almost every occasion.

Luckily in the dynamic view, with javascript, we are able to more  
correctly hide the drop-down effect until desired to be shown by the  
viewer.

> IMHO the problem is not that the proper solution isn't provided, but that
> the proper solution is not obvious to the end-user in DIMP like it is in
> IMP.  So the question becomes, how can we make the DIMP reply functionality
> easier to see and use, e.g., more obvious to the end-user.
>
>> I have not commented on the proposed alternatives because
>> in my view they do not acknowledge and solve the problem of preventing
>> accidental reply to all as well as the conventional dual button
>> solution already familiar to email users from many backgrounds..
>
> That is your right.

And as I and others have demonstrated, there is no reply to all  
"problem".  You continually ignore the fact that we DO NOT ALLOW  
AUTOMATIC REPLY TO ALL WITHOUT FIRST WARNING THE USER.  You never  
mention this.  Your argument /seems/ to be (since it is not clear at  
all) that this is unacceptable because a user "in a hurry" will ignore  
these warnings.  If they choose to ignore those clear warnings, what  
are we supposed to do about it?  The solution is surely **not** to  
break the correct functionality for every other user just because some  
users HYPOTHETICALLY may accidentally send a damaging message out (how  
often does one send a "damaging" message anyway?  This is just  
speculative rhetoric at best).

At some point, if you provide adequate safeguards, you have to blame  
the user if they do something wrong.

>> There is a tendency in developers to seek out glory, and in this case
>> I suspect it is getting in the way.  There is no glory in reverting
>> to a standard solution, but if the problem can be resolved with
>> an innovative approach, there is much recognition given in that.
>
> I don't think they are really getting any recognition or glory for their
> solution...  This isn't the kind of thing that really gets a product
> recognition, or the programmer "glory" in the real world.

"Seek out glory"?  I am both laughing and insulted by this accusation.  
  Yes, I am proud of the work I have done on this project over the  
last 10 or so years.  But do I make decisions based on personal glory?  
  Hell no.  Instead, I make decisions after thinking over the problem  
and weighing the pros/cons of the various potential solutions.  Crazy  
method, I agree.

If you think it is glory I am after with my "innovative" approach, you  
are free to feel that way.  My personal motivations are irrelevant,  
however, because even if my giant djb-sized ego was responsible for  
the decision, it doesn't change the fact that this decision is correct  
based on a thorough analysis of the problem.

(Not that it matters, but I have already committed some tweaks to the  
auto-reply notification code based on comments that arose during the  
list discussion.)

michael

___________________________________
Michael Slusarz [slusarz at horde.org]