[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: KMail User Interface
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <ingo.kloecker () epost ! de>
Date:       2001-05-31 1:42:21
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday, 31. May 2001 01:10, Ralf Nolden wrote:
> Michael Häckel wrote:
> > Sorry, but I really can't believe, that someone can't use KMail,
> > only because the number of unread mails is displayed directely
> > besides the folder names instead of aligned one under the other in
> > a different column.
>
> Well, we could argue about this. Anyway, see, the thing why we want
> this to change here and there - which to my respect are minor changes
> in the user interface to make it look better in the way that it's
> more "standard" - is to market it.

But especially this "standard" of seperate columns for the total number 
of messages and the number of unread messages really sucks. I think 
KMail provides a much better way for displaying this number.

> And if you have a look at aethera
> and evolution, not to speak of outlook or outlook express even, is to
> use graphics and eye-candy.

Yeah, sure. I want no f***ing eye-candy. I want functionality and 
stability.
BTW, which "eye-candy" nsmail provides do you miss in KMail. AFAIR 
nsmail hasn't very much "eye-candy" either.

[snip]
> wouldn't do the job just right. It's the eye-candy I miss and many
> other users will think just the same way.

Which eye-candy? Apart from the extra flag column to flag important 
messages I don't see any additional eye-candy.

> > Also, if there are folders with long names and folders with short
> > names, it isn't that bad, if the number is displayed, more closely
> > to the name of the folder.
>
> Well, that's why you can move columns to left and right, so if you
> have a long folder name, the number of mails can still be displayed
> by moving the column to the right or left.

Yeah, right. I'll put a 4 digit number left of the folder names. First 
of all this isn't eye pleasing if you have nested folders. Secondly, 
this would take to much space away which is needed for the folder 
names. But if you make your column using, "standard" way 
optional/configurable then it's fine with me although too many 
configuration options surely don't make a program very user friendly.

> > > in nsmail there's an icon for each thread. I don't know how other
> > > mail clients handle this but it is probably similar.
> >
> > Well, I would consider this wasted space, also to me it is not
> > obvious, that clicking on this coloumn disables/enables threading.
>
> Give it a try in netscape. Then you'll see what I mean. As Karl-Heinz
> already said, having a look at other stuff doesn't hurt :)

I just did and it really sucks. I don't understand why I liked it back 
in the days when I had to use nsmail because it was the only MTA for 
Linux with a GUI. BTW, in the meantime nsmail lacks so much nice and 
functional features which KMail provides (mailing list support, good 
PGP/GPG integration) that I could never switch back to the bloated 
nsmail.

> As an example why I think this is useful, it's that when I'm doing my
> mails and working out my thoughts, I want to search through them
> easily with a one click action *inside* the listview, and such a
> column would provide that to me. But as said, I would make it
> configurable so that those who think it's wasted space can turn it
> off. For others with a resolution of 1024x768 this wouldn't hurt I
> think (it could be 16 to 18 pixels just to fit a small icon into it).
> It doesn't hurt in all other mail clients that have it as I never
> heard any complain about it as well - plus, you can also move the
> column to the far right :)

Two reasons why nobody complains:
1.) "Einem geschenkten Gaul schaut man nicht ins Maul." (german proverb)
2.) Complaining is useless with closed source/proprietary software 
because they will simply ignore you.
3.) If a feature which a lot of people use just because it's there and 
not because it's really useful then these people will complain if the 
feature is removed. Therefore features are rarely removed or altered 
even if they have been very badly designed in the first place. And IMHO 
the thread column in nsmail was clearly a design flaw because it's use 
is not at all intuitive and it prevents sorting the threaded messages 
for example by the sender of the original message's name. Please don't 
tell me that clicking again on the thread button to sort the threads 
from oldest to newest instead of from newest to oldest is intuitive.

BTW, there are three kinds of mathematicians. One kind can count to 3, 
the other can't. :-)

> > Anyway, I still consider sorting and threading two completely
> > different things.
>
> They are. If I want to sort my mails for the subject, sender or date,
> that's simple sorting. But sorting them as threads is just another
> way of sorting because if I sort them by subject there's little
> chance I have all mails of a thread sorted below each other as a
> list,

Why? A good MTA should IMHO ignore leading Re:'s, Fwd:'s etc. if you 
sort by subject. And in fact this is what KMail does. I never tried 
this before and I must say that I'm really impressed.

> so I would just use the sort by thread column to sort it in
> threaded mode where you have more than one to choose from - see the
> configuration dialog. I as a user would like to make quick usage of
> it while working and not jumping to the configuration dialog every
> time I would like to have a different sorting of the threads.
> Clicking on the column label would help to cycle through the
> available options.

A toolbar button will provide everything you desire. Short ways to 
switch sorting modes without the need to use a menu or configuration 
dialog and an intuitive behaviour, i.e. threading can be simply turned 
on/off by clicking on the button, while sorting can simply be changed 
by clicking on the subject, sender or date column.

> Well, I didn't complain about the settings of the server etc. But I
> needed danimo to tell me how and *that* I could change to a different
> view - the long folder list. The name told me just a pure nothing and

Maybe two small images would be helpful to illustrate what long folder 
list means.

> it would be necessary for me to either give it a try - where many
> users are anxious to do that because they fear they're doing
> something wrong - or read the complete manual for a description. I
> wouldn't consider this intuitive :) But that's out of the original
> scope of the question about usability. I just wanted to point out
> that if people have difficulties to even configure their smtp and pop
> server, they'll run into even more if they want to have threaded
> sorting where a simple additional column is self-explaining and - see
> above - more practical to use if you want to cycle through the
> different thread sorting modes (which are in the groupbox as
> radiobuttons if I remember it correctly).

I consider this not intuitive or self-explaining. Clicking several 
times on the same button to cycle through different states is not 
intuitive.
I just realised that you are talking about "All threads open", "Only 
threads with new messages open", "All threads closed", etc.. Cycling 
through these modes would certainly confuse a lot of people. These 
modes need an explanation. And therefore they are in the configuration 
dialog.


> > > Configurable. You don't need to have them. If I would change
> > > anything, then it would be adding it and make it switchable with
> > > the new behaviour as the default for the mentioned cases where it
> > > comes to usability.
> >
> > Sorry, but when it is configurable, how to configure other things,
> > there is definitely something too much configurable.
>
> Hmm. How can we get together on this :) I propose to make it
> configurable if everyone resists to take some advise or ideas from
> the UI and marketing guys and then it's "over-configurable" ? :) 
> Please, then let us agree what you can accept as a good idea that can
> be changed by default if you don't want to have it configurable or a
> good idea to make those advanced settings easily configurable. A good
> idea could be a combo with "Old KMail look and behavoir" and "New
> KMail default look and behavoir". What about this one, then we could
> save a lot of trouble discussing this out if it comes to actually
> where to configure these settings that we propose :)

What about forking two versions of KMail? A plain, functional version 
of KMail for me and an eye-candy version of KMail for you. ;-)
This whole discussion is pointless.

If you want to have a button to cycle through the threading modes make 
a toolbar button. This can at least very easily be removed from the 
toolbar.
But a separate column in the header list view simply doesn't make sense 
because there is nothing that could stand in this column. In nsmail 
there is an icon in this column before root messages of threads. By 
clicking on this icon you can open the whole thread but you can't close 
it again by clicking again on this icon. Now this is what I call not 
intuitive and confusing. Why do I have to click on the [-] to close the 
thread again? So I can conclude that this icon doesn't make any sense. 
The only reason that it is there in nsmail is that the developers 
didn't want to have an empty column. Therefore they "invented" some 
brainless functionality which is in fact completely obsolete.

Regards,
Ingo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7FaF9GnR+RTDgudgRAs/AAJ0V7/DbsBlo1JPyejCcO3fKn8TD0QCeMkW7
ysQN8S9pRb210EQ+RT8m/Io=
=oXmR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]