=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Fri 23.Nov'12 at 15:07:49 +0000 -= > [ Peter Davis Wrote On Fri 23.Nov'12 at 14:27:23 GMT ] > > > The prevalent thinking in the software organizations I've been a > > part of is that products, including software, should be designed for > > the way users think and behave, instead of the other way around.
You refer to usability, and that's OK. If it can be aided somehow by Software, all the better. No misinterpretation: perfect. > > There has been a surge of research on cognitive psychology, > > "engineering psychology", human factors and related fields. The > > goal is not mind-reading, but close. It is understanding how > > human cognition works, and how we can design tools that users > > will be able to control effectively. Now ... what is the goal, the ideal situation you're striving for? It sounds like all the brains should go into the code, and the end-user may become brainless? I like computer aid, but I don't want brainless users. They should be aware of what they do & how things work, so _they_ are responsible for using their tools. Because software is _not_ perfect. Your approach assumes every end-user _can_ deal with everything it receives. But there is always some case where re-formatting doesn't or can't happen (outdated, broken, underdeveloped or misconfigured code). So while re-formatting might work for most cases (on both sending and receiving side), it wouldn't hurt any sender to consider those exceptions rather than turn off the brain and put responsibility (or blame) totally on others, be it the coders (of both sending and receiving code/outout) or the receivers, and therefore not write endless lines but break as you would with a paper-written letter. Good software will re-format _even this_ as desired. If not now, then at some future time when it truly can mind-read. ;) But until then breaking manually wouldn't kill you. > > But the fact that you refer to "end user's laziness and/or > > stupidity" suggests that you have no acquaintance with this > > approach to design. I think you/we argue on orthogonal dimensions: usability vs. responsibility/consideration. You consider only those already in advantage with advanced code to make _full/perfect_ use of usability, but neglect those not so lucky, and rather demand from them to upgrade: eat or die. Hmm... > > Nothing wrong with that. Mutt is a great tool for what it does. > > But to condemn the vast majority of email users, those who don't > > follow the line length or bottom-posting conventions we've > > discussed, for failing to comply with 40 year old strictures > > advocated by an extremely small segment seems to me > > counter-productive. Again missing the point: we're not in a competition for the MUA market. And it shouldn't turn into a "survival of the fittest", even though both ends do it somehow on their own way already by disqualifying the other for being different in goals, methods, priorities. Jamie, independent of enjoyed personal notes, on a side note: > I couldn't agree more. Well put Peter. full-quote-"me, too" has been listed as bad practice, too. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
