{#}  Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#}  To reply to the author, write to Brent Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>{#}  Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>{#}  To reply to the author, write to Christopher Niederauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>On 3/6/02 11:11, "Jonathan Baumgartner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>What would be *really* cool would be a tabbed window interface, like
>>>Mozilla or Adium. That's probably a significant amount of work,
>>>though. It would solve this problem, though.
>>
>>Why do people think that this is good UI design?  It doesn't scale well,
>>reduces visibility, and makes it more difficult to work with multiple
>>conversations.
>
>Maybe, instead of a tab window interface, there could be a side 
>drawer with a list of open conversations, such that the names can be 
>scrolled through vertically.
>
>I still think all of these ideas are a bad thing�, however. 
>Firstly, because there is no correct way to sort IMHO (ie not by 
>last accessed conversation, and definitely not in alphabetical order 
>in my case, due to the number of people I talk to).
>
>just my -2 cents,
>Chris


I think that the tabbed interface is optimal for people who have 
between 2 and say 5 conversations open at a time.  If you've got many 
more than that the drawer might be better, although you are certainly 
right about there being no one *correct* way to sort.  There are many 
*good* ways to sort, however. (i.e. instantiation order, pending 
events order, user defined order, etc.)

I would think that if you're talking to so many people that a 
scrolled list view isn't sufficient, that separate windows would bite 
as well, but I wouldn't know.  There aren't that many people who want 
to talk to me :)  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.


Brent
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---


Reply via email to