[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: > >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Steve> I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why > Steve> their mail clients use "top quoting". Did your friends do usability > Steve> studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this > Steve> and they prefered top posting. > > As I said in comp.lang.perl.misc... > > The quoted material is either relevant or it isn't.
No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least two distinct subcases of relevant material. * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by line base. The "traditional" way. * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through scrolling can. I don't see any reason why email styles should be fixed so rigidly as you think. Natural language evolves over time and I don't see any reason why email writing style also should be static. The quantity of email has increased greatly over time (and quality decreased) and I think some of the practices of the 1980s have to change to reflect this. Unless you want to keep worshipping the Net Ancestors of the 1980s for ever you have to accept that (like choice of text editor and reply-to munging) quoting style is a religious issue with no right or wrong answer and debate on the topic rapidly degenerates to mere assertion and counter-assertion. > So there's never a reason to top-quote. Except to demonstrate what a > lazy bast*rd the poster is. Actually it's harder for me to top-quote because my email client quotes traditionally. I do it, when I believe it helps, to reduce the scrolling work load on the reader and not to wind people up. BTW I prefer your Person> type quoting style to the usual >>>>>> mess which makes it often impossible to see who has written what and makes misquoting (as seen on list today and ironically on this very thread about "correct" email usage) more likely. Is there a GNUS setting for this? -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] progress (n.): the process through which the internet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals.
