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

[Eric Jon Rostetter]

Quoting D G Teed <donald.teed at gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Eric Jon Rostetter
> <eric.rostetter at physics.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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 don't want it easier to find. I want it to be there as an option
> plain as day.

Same thing, different wording.

> That some people don't get this just baffles me.  I suspect it
> is because they are thinking of themselves working
> within the interface, while I am thinking about 7000 users
> and a trouble ticket I saw while things were still quiet.

Which is why they are asking for feedback from others...  And not getting
much, since a few others are dominating the conversation with the same
old same old.

> If your stance is "no drugs", and people counter propose
> yes to drugs but how do we help drug users keep
> their jobs and drive while drugged, do you drop your
> "no drugs" belief?

No, you find middle ground.  Drop the extreme left and right, and
find something closer to the middle (doesn't have to be the middle,
just slighly off of one end or the other may be best).

> There are times when it makes
> no sense to discuss solutions which are a fix
> for a problem we helped create in the first place.

Then 90% of life is pointless, because "we" help create about 90% of the
problems we face in life...

> They all have dual reply options, and this has been common

That seems to be open for debate.  I've seem people say yes, and others
say no, so I really don't know.  I don't use any of those clients, so
I really can't say.

> My response is, this does not prevent the problem of errant
> Reply All, and until you do, this is not a solution.

I saw a "reply to all" incident back in the 1980's that resulted in
a person losing their job.  The fact that there was a separate "reply"
and "reply to all" didn't help this person at all.  This was before outlook,
gmail, thunderbird, et al.  This problem has existed since the day someone
had the idea to create a "reply to all" function in the email client.  And
it will  exist until the day we remove "reply to all" which I don't think
will ever happen.

In other words, you can not prevent the problem of an errant reply all.
You can only reduce the likelyhood of it.  And if you insist that the
problem be completely fixed (only possible IMHO by not providing reply
to all at all), then you are not being part of the solution of minimizing
its impact...

>  In fact
> you have introduced a problem by having one button.

But IMP (traditional) only has one button, and you say it isn't a problem.
So you contradict yourself.

> Is it not natural to back out that change to prevent
> the problem?

Not always.  It is natural to try to make changes to prevent or reduce
the problem.  Backing it out may not be the best option.

> I didn't see anyone acknowledge the problem is real and

I did.  They just disagreed with 1) your solution and 2) some of your
descriptions of the problem (but not all of your descriptions of the
problem).

> Maybe old fashioned thinking, but when none of the new solutions is
> good, you should consider tried, tested, and true until you can
> really provide a foolproof alternative.

May be old fashioned thinking, but rushing to the easiest or most obvious
change, without taking the time to think of what the best solution/change
would be first, can be at worst disasterous and at best stiffle innovation
and progress.

> --
> Horde mailing list
> Frequently Asked Questions: http://horde.org/faq/
> To unsubscribe, mail: horde-unsubscribe at lists.horde.org

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

This message is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied.  Use this message at your own risk.