[Design] High End Email

[petite_abeille]

On Saturday, Mar 8, 2003, at 21:59 Europe/Zurich, Cory Preus wrote:

> + More: "If manage my email faster, all it does is let me manage more 
> emails."

Ummm... right... what about:

"If I get a better car, all it does is let me drive more."

Which I would presume is a bad thing.

> A dangerous proposition, if you ask me. I like Zoe well enough, but 
> really, it breeds a nasty habit of saving data. For what? Yeah, 
> storage is effectively free nowadays, but saving something just 
> because merely compounds the problem of email (info) overload.

Ummm... perhaps... on the other hand nobody is complaining about Google 
"googling" more web sites to provide more relevant search results. So I 
doubt that the fact that there is _potentially_ a lot more data 
available has anything to do with information overload. I will venture 
that the difference is how much data one has to deal with at any given 
time (e.g. the relevance of the information).

> Deletion is something we are uncomfortable with...like anything else 
> that has "finality".

Perhaps... or simply because "deletion" requires making a irrevocable 
decision now: should I, or shouldn't I. And why should your software 
bother you with such trivial questions all the time? Alternatively, if 
an "email graveyard" (e.g. an archive) did exists, delete would simply 
mean "get out of my way" while allowing to resuscitate the dead when 
necessary (e.g. through search).

All of this bring up an interesting option: the "out of sight, out of 
mind" inbox filter. Instead of having things pile up in one's inbox, 
screaming for one's attention, perhaps there should be a rule that 
says: if not told otherwise, get out of my way (e.g. archive somewhere 
for latter perusal). And if the "get out of my way" is the default 
rule, the only thing that one would need to worry is to catch "sticky" 
mails: the ones you would like to pay attention too.

PA.