On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:40:07 -0700, Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> wrote: Non-text part: multipart/mixed Non-text part: multipart/signed > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:04:23 +1000, Brian May > <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote: > > On 30 June 2011 08:40, Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> wrote: > > > The 'a' keybinding, (in turn), was designed for cases when you *know* > > > you don't want to read the rest of the thread. > > > > ... in which case it should also mark everything as read. IMHO. > > I know the current behavior only catches my opinion (and only an opinion > I had at one particular point in time). So I won't say this is Right, > but I will at least explain what I was thinking: > > The "unread" tag is distinct from the "inbox" tag. Why two tags? Don't > they normally change at the same time? If a key like 'a' got rid of the > "unread" tag as well as the "inbox" then there would be almost no need > for having two tags. > > The idea I had is that "inbox" is fully under explicit control by the > user. The user must make an intentional decision to "archive" a message > in order for that tag to be removed. > > Distinct from that is "unread" which is handled automatically by the > mail client (as well as it can tell what you've actually read or > not). So this tag is removed only implicitly, (we don't have specific > commands to manipulate the "unread" tag). When the client displays a > message as the "current" message it immediately removes the "unread" > tag. > > Whenever it displays a message to the > user, (as the "current" message), it removes the unread tag from that > message. > > This means that messages can lose the "unread" tag while still remaining > tagged "inbox", (you read a message, but don't archive it), and that > messages can lose the "archive" tag while still remaining tagged > "unread", (you archive a thread before reading all messages in the > thread). > > The distinction ends up being useful to me. If at some point someone > points me to a specific message, and when I search for it I see the > "unread" tag, then this highlights to me that I never even looked at the > message. > > > Are there any keyboard bindings to go forwards to the next message or > > backwards to the last message without marking anything as archived? > > As mentioned by someone else, you can navigate the messages in a thread > with 'n' and 'p'. > > One of the obviously missing keybindings is a way to easily navigate > From the current thread to the next thread without archiving the current > thread. We should probably add that keybinding at some point, but I want > to at least point out why I didn't create it originally: > > The lack of a "move to next thread" binding helps encourage me to form > good habits. The goal I have when processing my inbox is to get > everything *out* of my inbox. I can do that by deciding one of several > common things: > > * I have nothing to do > > In this case I should just archive the message immediately > > * I can deal with this message "on the spot" (such as a quick reply) > > In this case, I should deal with the message, then archive it > > * I can't deal with this now, but need to later > > This is the key scenario. The wrong thing to do is to leave the > message in my inbox, (that just makes things pile up and makes > my future inbox processing slow, demotivating, and > unreliable). The right thing to do is to tag this message in a > way that I'm sure I'll find it again when I will be equipped to > deal with it. And then I can archive the message. > > So the right answer always involves archiving the message nearly > immediately, (at most after a quick reply or so), and the keybindings > encourage archiving over leaving the message in the inbox. > > Of course, one does have an existing keybinding for "move to next > message in thread without archiving"; it just consists of three key > presses: > > 'q', 'n', Enter > > At that's long enough to discourage its frequent use. > > So that's a bit of my philosophy and methodology. But like I said, we > should probably add the obviously missing keybindings so people with > other philosophies and methodologies can use the program comfortably. > > > Also, just something I have noticed it isn't really obvious that a > > thread has replies without scrolling down, and that takes time. Would > > be really good if there could be some big/highlighted visual indicator > > that there are still unread messages further down. > > That would be good, yes. > > -Carl > > -- > carl.d.wo...@intel.com Non-text part: application/pgp-signature > _______________________________________________ > notmuch mailing list > notmuch@notmuchmail.org > http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
100% in agreement. Besides 1: Keybinds are way too personal to be standardized upon. This might be of interest to some: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.suckless/6495 Besides 2: Emacs allows to tailor *anything and everything* to your needs, on the spot, in realtime (reflection and all that). Peace -- Pieter _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
