[Design] In Out collection logic proposal refinements
bkirsch at osafoundation.org
Thu Nov 16 11:14:54 PST 2006
See comments in-line.
On Nov 16, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Grant Baillie wrote:
> On 16 Nov, 2006, at 00:15, Davor Cubranic wrote:
>> Brian Kirsch wrote:
>>>> Perhaps I misspoke. In Chandler, the From field doesn't
>>>> necessarily have a valid email address. It could just be text.
>>>> The "Send via" field is what would normally go in the "From"
>>>> field of a traditional email client.
>>>> In normal email clients, recipients of Chandler messages will
>>>> see the email address in the "Send via" field appear in the
>>>> "From field".
>>> Honestly I don't see what you are trying to accomplish here. A
>>> email message in a traditional mail client must have a from with
>>> a valid email address. It can't just be text. If the Send Via is
>>> normally what would go in the From field then lets put that in
>>> the From field. We still have to support traditional email
>>> clients so why are we reinventing the wheel here?
>> I think Mimi is trying to make the distinction between "from" and
>> "reply-to" headers a little less jargony. One could perhaps argue
>> that it is more natural to let the user just say "Send as", and
>> then behind the scenes map that value to the "from" email header
>> and the account address to the "reply-to" header.
> My understanding of the design is this: When Chandler is displaying
> an invitation, i.e. an event stamped as an email, the main focus is
> on the event, i.e. who is organizing it, who is attending, who is
> being notified (but isn't attending). The fact that the invite is
> being transported via email is secondary; in fact, if the item is
> shared, some of the people in the addressing fields will find out
> about it via syncing a share instead of email. You can also imagine
> a future Chandler where the invite is transported via other
> mechanisms (jabber, atompub, CalDAV scheduling, ...).
So to clarify for myself what Grant is articulating. If a message is
also an event (Invitation) then do this rerouting of the from etc to
provide a better collaboration user experience. Now what happens if
the item is just a mail message and not an Invitation?
Does this rerouting still take place or do we use the traditional
mail from, to, cc that we currently support in the detail view.
> So, that is what the design was designed to support. You can still
> get at the email fields via a menu item, but that's not enabled by
> default. One point of contention, that we discussed in the past,
> was that users might find the new use of the terms "from", "to",
> "cc" confusing. This may well be possible, but really we won't know
> for sure until we've gotten the app in the hands of real users.
I would think this *would* be confusing especially if the behavior
changes for a mail message vs. an invitation. If this is the case I
would vote for a different nomenclature for the invitation workflow's
such as "Organizer" instead of "From".
>> P.S. "Send via" sounds really awkward. How about "send as"?
> Personally, I think I prefer "send as" slightly. However, I'm not
> totally enamoured with either (not being totally enamoured with
> terminology seems to be a recurring condition for me, though :).
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
More information about the Design