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

[Michael M Slusarz]

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

> Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:
>
>> And as I and others have demonstrated, there is no reply to all "problem".
>
> Yes, there is...

Still disagree here, at least to the extent that it is such a problem  
that it needs to be the number one priority.  All alleged stories I  
have heard are all hearsay.

The MUCH bigger "problem" is users NOT replying to a group of  
recipients when that is what they are supposed to do.  Because if I,  
as a message sender, send a message to a group of users, I am  
expecting replies to go to EVERY USER.

I can bring up a personal story that occurred within the last month  
due to someone replying to sender, instead of to all, that resulted in  
a major issue (synopsis: e-mail to arrange transportation; someone  
replied to sender, not all, so nobody knew this person was planning on  
being a part of the group; this person was left behind due to this).

>> You continually ignore the fact that we DO NOT ALLOW AUTOMATIC  
>> REPLY TO ALL WITHOUT FIRST WARNING THE USER.
>
> If people don't see the option to change the default, and don't understand
> the warning (both have been pointed out on the list as issues) then
> there is a problem.  Maybe it is just icon/font size, maybe it is
> poor positioning, maybe it is color, who knows.  But there is a problem.

Then this is a graphic design issue.  But not an issue with the theory.

I agree that if we tie the drop-down graphic to the "Reply text" more  
completely, e.g. through use of a border, this will fix this issue.  I  
just don't have the graphic skills to make this happen.

>> 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).
>
> No, this is a real threat, not a hypothetical.  The fact that it occurs
> rarely doesn't dismiss it from being a problem.

But it is not a critical threat.  The assumption is that someone sends  
something out to a list of users that is somehow "confidential" or  
"secret".  But again, this is just an assumption or rhetoric.  Yes,  
this could happen.  But in PRACTICE, this simply doesn't happen.   
Instead, what occasionally happens is that someone sends out a message  
to an entire list that is simply annoying or irrelevant for most users  
on the list.  Hardly the type of thing to get all worked up over.


Wanted to mention another example of Reply behavior, this time in  
Facebook.  When you send a message to multiple users (a  
"Conversation"), Facebook ONLY allows you to reply to all users.  I  
agree with the choice to make this the default decision.

What Facebook is missing, though, is an option to allow a reply back  
only to the original sender.  In my situation, a friend was asking for  
street addresses from a group of people.  I figured it would probably  
be polite of me not to spam the group with my street address (there's  
a bit of a privacy issue here, but nothing I am going to get overly  
concerned about.  If my address accidentally was sent to everyone, so  
what?).  But Facebook provides no easy way to send a message directly  
to the original user.  You need to manually click on a user's name and  
create a new message thread, which annoyingly means recreating the  
subject line.

A friend that was part of the conversation, who is computer literate  
but by no means a power user, brought up this issue when I talked to  
him later.  He is what I would call an average user.  And he knew  
enough to understand that there *should* have been some sort of way to  
switch.

What I learned from the experience:

1. The default decision was the correct decision.  The original sender  
intended to start a group conversation.  The default decision MUST be  
to honor that decision.
2. Multiple reply buttons at this point would be tremendously  
confusing.  Give me ONE button to push.
3. I have NO problems in this case clicking on Reply All, then  
determining that I want to reply to sender only.  In fact, I didn't  
make the choice to reply to sender until AFTER I started to type the  
message.  Part of the decision making process was seeing the list of  
names that the message was going to.
4. What needs to be available is a quick and easy way to make this All  
-> Sender transition.  This is what Facebook lacks and what we  
provide.  This is the **key** to the entire scheme.

michael

___________________________________
Michael Slusarz [slusarz at horde.org]