On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 01:29:28PM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> On 09.07.2001 10:31:16 Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> > I strongly disagree. Of course it does not make sense to
> > re-implement procmail in mutt. But the average user does not need
> > 5 percent of procmail's functionality anyway. On the other hand,
> > many users like to have some mail filtering but are unable to set
> > up with mutt. I believe this is one of the most common features
> > people expect from their mail client - and I don't mean UNIX
> > freaks but just an office user like our secretary.
>
> Pardon me, and I know that this may not be popular to say here - but do
> "ordinary" users actually use mutt? I'd expect "secratary types" to use
> something like Evolution, as it's "easier" to use for these kind of
> people.
That does not mean that one has to ignore usability. I like to
have a powerful email client like mutt, but I'd also like to be
able to configure the common stuff with more ease.
> What I mean to say is, people which use mutt certainly aren't the common
> John Does and like to tweak their computer and all. Secretaries
> (normally) need a mouse....
Well, if command line interfaces worked more intuitive people
might actually start to like them. Of course I can't tell our
secretary that she has to read five thousand lines of man pages
just to make the mail program run. BTW, I like the flexibility I
get, but I don't like to read man pages for every minor
configuration option I need.
Please don't believe I only want to complain. Personally I'm
writing a window manager (fvwm) that has *much* more options than
mutt has. The fvwm developers are quite aware that it's a pain to
configure for beginners. If someone wants to flame me now this
would be a good place to start with ;-)
Hm, perhaps this is already a bit off topic.
Bye
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen
fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20
