Comments on: Mail 2.0: Basic flaws in quoted text behaviour http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/ Notes from an unfinished world… Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:29:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sjk http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-5028 sjk Tue, 09 May 2006 23:35:06 +0000 http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/#comment-5028 When I type the return key anywhere within quoted text I only want a <b>line break</b> there, clearly separating the original quoted text into two new blocks above/below the insertion point. That's what usually seems to happen when return is typed at the end of a displayed line within a quoted text, but not elsewhere in the line (as Pierre's example demonstrates). The "quoted empty lines" that extend flowed text above/below the new insertion point are superfluous for me in this context because I'm not adding new text to them. And deleting those unwanted "phantom" lines can be tricky. The return key behavior within quoted text is further complicated depending on whether that text is flowed or wrapped. I've done a few tests while composing this but it would take more thorough analysis to know whether there's a consistent, predictable behavior. It quickly got weird; definitely not what I'd describe as "attention to detail" from a usability perspective. When I type the return key anywhere within quoted text I only want a line break there, clearly separating the original quoted text into two new blocks above/below the insertion point. That’s what usually seems to happen when return is typed at the end of a displayed line within a quoted text, but not elsewhere in the line (as Pierre’s example demonstrates).

The “quoted empty lines” that extend flowed text above/below the new insertion point are superfluous for me in this context because I’m not adding new text to them. And deleting those unwanted “phantom” lines can be tricky.

The return key behavior within quoted text is further complicated depending on whether that text is flowed or wrapped. I’ve done a few tests while composing this but it would take more thorough analysis to know whether there’s a consistent, predictable behavior. It quickly got weird; definitely not what I’d describe as “attention to detail” from a usability perspective.

]]> By: Pierre Igot http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-5027 Pierre Igot Tue, 09 May 2006 16:39:19 +0000 http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/#comment-5027 It's hard for me to believe that you can seriously think that the behaviour I described above is "attractive" or makes any sense. It might make sense from the perspective of the person who knows about the underlying mechanism of quoted text in flowed e-mail—but I am looking at it from the perspective of the end user. How can the end user be expected to believe that inserting two return chars when he presses the Return key once makes sense? This is absurd. It is with such an attitude that we end up having computer software that only software engineers can understand and know how to use. And if you really believe that Mail has benefitted from an "exceptional" attention to detail, you have a lot of on-line reading about people's experiences with Mail to do. It’s hard for me to believe that you can seriously think that the behaviour I described above is “attractive” or makes any sense. It might make sense from the perspective of the person who knows about the underlying mechanism of quoted text in flowed e-mail—but I am looking at it from the perspective of the end user. How can the end user be expected to believe that inserting two return chars when he presses the Return key once makes sense? This is absurd.

It is with such an attitude that we end up having computer software that only software engineers can understand and know how to use.

And if you really believe that Mail has benefitted from an “exceptional” attention to detail, you have a lot of on-line reading about people’s experiences with Mail to do.

]]> By: nemo http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-5026 nemo Tue, 09 May 2006 15:49:07 +0000 http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/#comment-5026 I think you're being a little naive about the way that flowed text actually works. This feature is perfectly reasonable text-flow behavior. Flowed text is actually just an interface conversion of the old '>' character that we all remember from email clients of olde. If you only insert one return character the next line starts the user typing before the '>blahblahblah' which cannot be logically interpreted in flowed text. By inserting two and moving the cursor up a line the user the flow can be preserved. What you describe as a 'useless empty line with quoting' is the original '>' from the line that you pressed return on. While you may not think this attractive, ask yourself- is it good text-composition behavior to DELETE a character when the return key is pressed? Because that's the only way you can avoid this given the mechanics of flowed text. The Mail.app team has exceptional attention to detail. They also have, apparently, a better comprehension of the mechanics of email than you. I think you’re being a little naive about the way that flowed text actually works. This feature is perfectly reasonable text-flow behavior. Flowed text is actually just an interface conversion of the old ‘>’ character that we all remember from email clients of olde. If you only insert one return character the next line starts the user typing before the ‘>blahblahblah’ which cannot be logically interpreted in flowed text. By inserting two and moving the cursor up a line the user the flow can be preserved.

What you describe as a ‘useless empty line with quoting’ is the original ‘>’ from the line that you pressed return on. While you may not think this attractive, ask yourself- is it good text-composition behavior to DELETE a character when the return key is pressed? Because that’s the only way you can avoid this given the mechanics of flowed text.

The Mail.app team has exceptional attention to detail. They also have, apparently, a better comprehension of the mechanics of email than you.

]]> By: Hawk Wings » Blog Archive » Heavyweights body slam Mail.app http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-5025 Hawk Wings » Blog Archive » Heavyweights body slam Mail.app Tue, 09 May 2006 14:07:28 +0000 http://www.betalogue.com/2006/05/08/mail-20-basic-flaws-in-quoted-text-behaviour/#comment-5025 [...] Pierre Igot (read his “Talking Mail.app” interview) at Betalogue describes the odd way in which Mail handles format=flowed text. [...] [...] Pierre Igot (read his “Talking Mail.app” interview) at Betalogue describes the odd way in which Mail handles format=flowed text. [...]

]]>