On Apr 17 2010, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Brian Hayden wrote:
Quote the dictionary all you want; while I agree with you in an ideal
world, people have been conditioned by 25 years of GUI metaphors that say
otherwise, which is why the purist recommendations are broken.
Except that the way that the Trash IMAP clients (double meaning intended)
implement the GUI metaphor is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than how the GUI Trash
metaphor is implemented elsewhere.
Blanket assertion.
A study is useless if the data is biased.
Tautology.
But, go ahead; keep on doing the same thing and expect different results.
No, in fact. I think the common trash model is entirely broken, and my
clients have not used it. But because your thinking is entirely black and
white, you assume that one must be "doing the same thing" just because one
recognizes that wishful thinking and dictionary definitions don't tell us
the whole story.
Gmail's implementation made the mistake of layering IMAP on top which is
the wrong place to put IMAP. But at least Gmail rejected all of the
"truths" about what users expect from a GUI that you claim that "people
have been conditioned by 25 years". Gmail did something different, and
got different results.
Yes. Shockingly, when there is nothing called "Trash" people don't think
about trash. Of course, what gives Google this luxury is not available to
most sites. But, go ahead; keep on applying the same standards to different
problems.
Try thinking outside of the box.
Indeed.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
Imap-uw@u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
