[Design] Fwd: [Bug 6553] Offline mode

[Mimi Yin]

Hi Brian,

Are you worried about the scenario where the user takes a collection  
on-line, but is still able to receive email in the collection? and  
send email from the collection? which may surprise them because they  
thought they took the collection offline?

Mimi

On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
>
> I really don't see how this hierarchy would apply to mail. There is  
> no relationship between a mail account and a collection. For  
> example mail could appear in both the dashboard and the 'In'  
> collection. What would it mean to take the 'In' collection offline  
> in relation to mail?
>
> Mail could also appear in a custom user collection having been  
> dragged from the 'In' collection.
>
> The issue is the sharing paradigm we are using with collections  
> does not really apply to other network protocols.
>
> It seems at this point a brief chat between the service layer  
> developers and the design team may be required to solidify our  
> offline strategy. Of course anyone else who would like to  
> participate is welcome to join in.
>
> I am also about to check in the online / offline mail code which  
> includes a temporary menu item under the mail test menu that  
> toggles mail online / offline.
>
> In offline mode:
> 1. No IMAP or POP mail is downloaded.
> 2. Clicking the test account button pops up a dialog warning the  
> user that they are in offline mode.
> 3. All SMTP mail is queue and sent once the mail service is back  
> online.
>
> -Brian
>
>
>> Mimi
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 4, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:
>>>
>>>> My bad, I kept going on the bug when I should have been posting  
>>>> comments to the list ;o)
>>>>
>>>> In reply to Brian's comment below, the proposal I put forth in  
>>>> the bug would unify 'Go offline' for sharing and email by  
>>>> allowing the user to essentially suspend syncing of all shares.  
>>>> I think unless we can unify these concepts for Preview, my sense  
>>>> is that it will be too confusing to make 'Go offline' for email  
>>>> available for the end-user. However, we can certainly keep it in  
>>>> the Test menu for developers.
>>>
>>> Hi Mimi,
>>> I think it is worth taking a bit of time to get this right for  
>>> preview. I agree that we want a unified concept of go online / go  
>>> offline. It would make no sense to me to have the ability to take  
>>> email offline while sharing is still online. It should be one  
>>> action for Preview where go offline takes everything offline.  
>>> That is the easiest concept for users to understand and is also  
>>> the easiest task to accomplish from a development standpoint.  It  
>>> is also the origins of bug 6553 where developers wanted the  
>>> ability to test Chandler without network operations via a -- 
>>> offline flag. If based on user feedback something more complex is  
>>> desired then we can revise for Chandler 1.0.
>>>
>>> It seems to me the concept we have for Sharing of taking specific  
>>> collections on or off line may be the wrong terminology and thus  
>>> refining will make this decision clearer.
>>>
>>> When selecting a collection for sharing there is the take  
>>> online / offline toggle menu item. But really what one is saying  
>>> is no longer sync this specific collection. Yes the collection is  
>>> 'offline', but the rest of the app is online which I think is a  
>>> confusing concept for novice computer users. By changing the  
>>> sharing verbiage to better reflect what is happening it may clear  
>>> up the offline / online discussion.
>>>
>>> We are not taking sharing offline but are telling the sharing  
>>> service to not sync a specific share. Again, the rest of sharing  
>>> is online as are the other Chandler network services. Instead,  
>>> the wording could be something like "Disable syncing of 'In'  
>>> collection' and 'Enable syncing of 'In' collection'.
>>>
>>> Changing this wording paves the way for the addition of a 'Go  
>>> Offline'  File menu item that takes the entire app (email,  
>>> sharing, rss, etc) offline.
>>>
>>> That's my two cents :)
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------- Comment #17 From Mimi Yin 2006-11-03 14:15 PST [reply]  
>>>> -------
>>>> Yes, but in  Chandler the mental model we're trying to promote  
>>>> is that Sharing
>>>> is all things Communications and agnostic to protocol. Sharing  
>>>> includes:
>>>>
>>>> IMAP, POP, WebDAV, CalDAV, RSS and eventually IM, SMS, VoIP etc.
>>>>
>>>> If we have a single 'Go offline' menu that includes email and  
>>>> sharing, I think
>>>> it be confusing to have it under the File menurather than the  
>>>> Share menu.
>>>> Especially because all the Sync related stuff for both Email and  
>>>> Sharing are
>>>> under the Share menu.
>>>>
>>>> ------- Comment #18 From Brian Kirsch 2006-11-03 17:11 PST  
>>>> [reply] -------
>>>> I think the key issue is not which menu header to place the  
>>>> offline toggle
>>>> under but how will the toggle work. Right now the online /  
>>>> offline toggle is
>>>> very specific to sharing of individual collections. As stated  
>>>> earlier this is
>>>> not the right model for mail or RSS or VOIP or any of the other  
>>>> sharing
>>>> protocols outside of CalDAV / WebDAV.
>>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>>>
>>>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>>>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>>>
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20061106/3852feb6/attachment.html