Vincent Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapota :
> Hello Savane hackers,
>
> some remarks piled up into my mind about the mail I recieve from
> Gna!, and I would like to know what you think about it. I would like
> the notifications to be more straightforward, very simple to read in a
> few secs (maybe a 'terse vs. verbose' notification style could become
> a user pref). Here is such a generated e-mail with some comments:
>
>> This is an automated notification sent by Gna!.
>> It relates to:
>> task #1067, project Gna! Administration
>> ==============================================================================
>> LATEST MODIFICATIONS of task #1067:
>> ==============================================================================
>
> I see that 'task #1067' is reported 4 times (including email
> subject), this is way too much. And the email should really start with
> the "== ... ==" header, the first 3 lines make the reading a bit
> akward.
I did not found where the extra line (I got only one) comes
from. Maybe from mail() itself.
Whatever. The important part of "Latest modification" is the fact that
it is a separator. Not the fact that it reminds the number of the item
(which does not seems to be a problem.
>> Posted by: Mathieu Roy <yeupou>
>> Posted on: 2004-11-19 16:13 (Europe/Paris)
>
> This information should on be inserted if the From field could not
> be set ('Posted by: anonymous coward'). The date is not important, it
> should go later in the full overview: most of the time there is only a
> small amount of time between the event and the reception of the
> e-mail; thus our email client will display the date for us. The date
> is only there for foolproof checking.
I agree, we could possibly skip that part.
>> ==============================================================================
>> OVERVIEW of task #1067:
>> ==============================================================================
>> URL:
>> <http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=1067>
>> Summary: FAQ using the common tracker code
>> Project: Gna! Administration
>> Submitted by: yeupou
>> Submitted on: ven 19.11.2004 � 16:03
>> Should Start On: ven 19.11.2004 � 00:00
>> Should be Finished on: sam 19.11.2005 � 00:00
>> Category: None
>> Priority: 1 - Later
>> Status: None
>> Privacy: Public
>> Assigned to: None
>> Percent Complete: 0%
>> Open/Closed: Open
>> Effort: 0.00
>
> Most of the time we only use a small subset of those field. What
> would be nice is to have a 'unused/unset' value for them. For
> instance, we could already consider that if Status or AssignedTo are
> set to 'None', they don't need to be displayed.
This is the overview of the item, frankly it makes sense that it shows
what is shown on the report. "None" can be an value as important as
the others.
Finally, most persons are not forced to read the overview. I have
trouble to understand how an extra part could be a real nuisance; on
the other hand, I perfecly gets how it could be a nuisance to add one
more configuration case to handle when generating mails.
>
>> This item URL is:
>> <http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=1067>
>
> Is is really necessary to repeat that information ?
This information is probably the most important one. Considering it
costs us absolutely nothing to include, I do not see any reason to
remove it.
>> ______________________________________________
>> Message post� via/par Gna!
>> http://gna.org/
>
> Again, is it necessary ? When piling up with Mailman's footer
Mailman footer is "our crap". Savane is not dependent on mailman, have
nothing to do with it and perfectly ignores what mailman is configured
to add.
> , it only confuses the user which needs more time to select the
> proper URL.
Really?
I did not know you were so easily confusable, Vincent :)
> The direct task link already advertises Gna! in some way...
It is not really a matter of advertising. Users have signature. A
software should have a signature too, so users now by reading the end
of the mail were it comes from.
One could claim he should know it because he is familiar with Savane
mail notifications: but the point of this information specifically to
give clues to persons that are not familiar with the usual stuff,
while the ignore are likely to ignore this extra information without
so much effort.
> To sum up, the 'cheap' notification email would look like:
>
> **snip**
>
> Gna! Administration, task #1067
> ==============================================================================
>
> CHANGED
> -------
>
> Follow-up Comment:
> Uargh, why did I posted that thing here!?
>
> OVERVIEW
> --------
>
> URL:
> <http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=1067>
>
> Submitted by: yeupou
> Submitted on: ven 19.11.2004 � 16:03
> Priority: 1 - Later
> Privacy: Public
> Open/Closed: Open
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Not for this year, but it would be nice to have the FAQ using the
> common code (with some change in the interface: ability to change
> details, no comments + change in the interface for all trackers:
> ability to configure query form so two fields at least are used to
> subdivise the content (instead of having one big table with all item,
> you would have several table under one h1 and one h2, both being
> specific fields defined in the query form))
Your example looks nice because it is based on the the most basic form
of changes notification: a followup comment of two lines. Now if you
start working on more complex case, with many differents changes,
you'll see the separators you propose wont make the whole stuff being
readable (it will be particulary hard to make the difference between
changes, overview: you took "Changes" like it would fit in one
section, while it can already contains 4 differents sections).
Also, for the overview, if projects have configured their trackers to
use a certain amount of fields, we should not interfere with that
because we have the feeling that "None" is not an important value
while it could well be the exact contrary.
I have the feeling that you are focused on reducing the number of
lines to improve lisibility. It seems to me that this works only on
items with are nearly empty. It would already be a different story
with items with comments of more than 10 lines, which include
sections/subsection, bits of code (in this case, your separator is
likely to be near invisible).
So indeed, we can remove the extra "changed by" 2 lines but apart from
that, the rest does not seems to me viable in real cases with items
with a lot of details.
Instead of going the way "we could in one minutes do something
perfect", proposals about mail notification should be based on
different cases, more real than a notification like "oups, I posted
that item at the wrong place" and should keep in mind that if it is
cool to do something efficient for expert of the tool, it must not
assume that the common user will guess everything. The common user is,
I think, the one that matters most; because they other, if they are
not trying their best to be dumb, will have no trouble to skip what
does not matter to them.
smart != short
Regards,
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
