On Jan 23, 2010, at 3:44 PM, John Gruber wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2010, at 4:57am, Mason Mark wrote:
>
>> And I think (okay, hope) that we are gradually coming to a consensus that
>> multiple full-power "main window" style message viewers do have great value
>> for some people, and can be implemented by Letters without harming the users
>> who want one-window simplicity, by making the creation of additional viewers
>> an explicit command that never happens otherwise.
>
> You say this as though there are no trade-offs whatsoever. Like as though
> those who actually prefer just one main window lose nothing with the Apple
> Mail "many main windows if you want them" model.
>
> But, for one example, if there's one and only one main window, then it can
> have a keyboard shortcut, and when you hit that shortcut, you know exactly
> which window will pop forward.
OK, maybe "without harming" should have been "with minimal harm to".
Sure, I admit that making this decision means making a trade-off. Still, the
choice seems decidedly lopsided in favor of the possibility to (explicitly)
create multiple viewer windows.
There *is* a certain zen-like quality to uber-simplicity that's attractive
(even though often, as in this case, it comes at the cost of flexibility and
power).
And, I acknowledge the keyboard shortcut issue you raise. (But, really, that
one's doesn't seem impossible to address. If you never create multiple viewer
windows, why couldn't there be a keyboard shortcut bring the single one you
have to the front? Mail.app has a menu command ("Message Viewer") that does
exactly this (but no keyboard shortcut by default). So again, the ability to
create multiple viewers would only "bite" you if you explicitly decided to use
that feature. The "Message Viewer" command would only become (slightly)
ambiguous if you have created >1 of them.)
So the trade-off seems to be relatively minor drawbacks on one side, virtually
all of which are "opt-in", versus major functional drawbacks on the other.
I understand that for the user who *never* wants to use multiple viewers, then
the presence of the feature adds a bit of potential complexity, and an extra
menu command that they don't need. But it's really only a tiny little bit of
added complexity or lost elegance. The magnitude of the net negative impact on
such users is pretty small.
On the other side of the equation, as I think it has now been hashed to death
in the thread, arbitrarily limiting these "full-power" windows to only one,
takes away some serious power from the user. It would be hobbling enough that
it's hard to envision this app doing Mail.app's current job, even with a snazzy
editor and powerful automation.
Users who are accustomed to using a bunch of mail perspectives might still use
Letters sometimes, but would almost certainly find it too limited to serve as
their primary mail client. By contrast, the number of users who would find the
issue you raise to be a true deal-breaker would be a small number, I think.
I mean, we're not here to make Delicious Email, right? So I'd hope that in
making this kind of design trade-offs, the general rule for Letters.app would
be to err on the side of power.
Cheers,
--
Mason
P.S.
It's also conceivable that there be a One True Main Window, without eliminating
the power if user-defined-and-refined mail perspectives. As long as the user
can freely create "full-featured" mail viewing windows with the full stack of
controls to dictate/refine what they show--source list, search UI, list/thread
view, and message pane--then the 'hobbling functionality' argument is
completely addressed.
As long as the equivalent functionality of Mail was present, I really don't
think the fact that one window was designated 'main' window would be a
deal-breaker for anybody, either.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
