Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Edgar,

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:07:38 +0100 GMT (24/12/2003, 05:07 +0700 GMT),
Edgar wrote:

>> So, can someone explain why it is that a company pays money to have a
>> secretary learn correspondence, but expects that same secretary to be
>> able to properly use e-mail without any instruction or guidance? Or is
>> it just that nobody cares.

> I can not explain it and I'm wondering my self. Seems that e-mail
> and sometimes using company databases are seen as Software that
> every body know's and that "The firm" should not waste money on
> training or even a manual when starting with. In my case it was
> Lotus Notes. Just sending and receiving is not a big deal.

I don't know about Lotus Notes. But I have been in the situation twice
that the company thatI worked for switched from fax to email. Now, a
fax you type, put it in the fax machine, key in the recipient's number
and off it goes. Just sending and receiving email is just as easy, as
you say. Or a lot easier: you type it, including the email address,
and just hit "send". No getting up from your chair, keying the
number... a lot more efficient. And incoming messages don't have to be
carried from the fax machine to the desk any more, they are
immediately on the screen.

Efficiency has increased. The manager is happy.

This manager has been in the business for 30 years. He has never
needed a computer, and why would he need one now. He is very
future-minded; so all his staff, including his secretary, have a
computer with email access. The hardware was a lot more expensive than
fax machines, but he thinks it's worth it: now he runs a modern
company.

A while later he is told in a meeting that people want to filter and
colour-code and do all kinds of things with their emails. What the
heck? He should pay for expensive training sessions? Sending and
receiving is easy, would they suddenly *need* more? Not likely.

Better send the secretary to a course where she can learn how to
communicate correctly when dealing with the government. Because that
is directly related to increased profitability.

> But if you would like to know more about all it features and go
> deeper into how you can setup things (for a user), they mumble
> something about, "there should be a 10 minute guide book somewhere
> around here".

Which would not be a bad idea.

> In some companies it's not just the e-mail program that is handed to
> you this way, in some cases it's the ERP software ;-) with some
> minor comments on what buttons you should push.

Oops. ERP is not easy, and a software cannot be easily intuitive. ;-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

"When they broke open molecules, they found they were only stuffed
with atoms. But when they broke open atoms, they found them stuffed
with explosions."

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.02.3 CE
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM





Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Hi Rich,

@24-Dec-2003, 16:04 -0500 (24-Dec 21:04 UK time) rich gregory [RG]
in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:

...  seasonal harmony and agreements ...

RG> BTW, what's ?

Very Big Grin ;-).

-- 
Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator
SB! v2.03 Beta/22 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1
'

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Hi Rich,

@23-Dec-2003, 15:21 -0500 (23-Dec 20:21 UK time) rich gregory [RG]
in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:

MDP>> This is such a tiny flaw compared to

RG> Tiny? I'll give you "small"! There are times when I have a heck
RG> of a lot of email addresses on the BCC: line that need to be
RG> trimmed and this can be a huge (give me "appreciable"?)
RG> frustration,
... 

What ... you never discovered the address picker? No wonder
you're so frustrated. Just click the little man icon at the end of
the BCC line. Use the picker to throw out addresses from a line that
long. It's so easy that way!

Alternatively, I could copy the line to a real editor to work on
that much text. Edit boxes were never built to handle that much
text. Hence the address picker. Which works great.

RG> The part that strikes me as unprofessional

Maybe it strikes you that way, but I *am* a professional and I
happen to understand why it is like it is. That's edit fields for
ya! 

RG> is that this is an old reported problem that (not being a
RG> programmer myself) ought to be easy to fix!

It's not as it happens. It's a problem within an edit box control,
which is like a 'Name' entry box on a form. Edit boxes are awkward
at best of times, not like a textbox or edit window, which are
completely different and much easier to control.

... 

RG> .. the owners would then become quite unhappy with the loss of
RG> productivity from the employees' learning curve issues.

Well, the companies into which I have recommended TB have no such
issues. I get maybe 4 calls a year from them about TB. As a
one-for-one OE replacement, there's hardly any learning curve. Okay,
initial set-up can be a bit thought provoking. Generally, it's only
if they start getting into deeper levels that there would be any
queries, but they wouldn't be going there without some level of
technical know-how to start with.

RG> Granted, after a couple of months some of the new users might
RG> see the advantages,

Untrue. The advantages are instant. HTML messages no longer signal
receipt and vulnerability to email marketers (spammers). Viruses no
longer instantly run. Messages go out WYSIWYG - an unseen instant
improvement in output formatting. That's just out-of-the-box. No
support needed. The whole thing runs faster for the simple user than
anything else going.

I'd say that the 'advantages' you're talking about are way outside
the usage profile of the average email user.

As for such users cranking up huge BCC lists ... what's that all
about anyway?  Are you a spammer? Why do you expect people to
do that as an everyday email activity? It doesn't happen in my
experience. It happened this week when I sent out my Xmas cards. It
happens sometimes when I circulate to my 'Humour' list. I always use
the address picker for such things. Works a treat

RG> maybe even the owners, but certainly not for some time. And in
RG> the meantime *I* become email-boy, charging for additional tech
RG> support for 30 people (which owners *HATE*) instead of
RG> network-man who is on retainer (which owners just hate to pay)!

It doesn't happen. Why should it?

MDP>> Not if you reformat them. Either use the recursive wrap
MDP>> template macro published in the Library (which is what I
MDP>> personally use) or manually Alt-L for each paragraph to which
MDP>> you are replying. Erm - whatever happened to "trim to
MDP>> context"?

RG> I'll have to look at the recursive wrap template you mention.
RG> How does it work, what does it do? (I am going to end up with 20
RG> templates in my TB! that I'd also have to support for these
RG> other users!)

They go into QT's that are invoked either by hand or included in
general reply templates with %QINCLUDE="wrap". The instructions are
all there in the macro library:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/Library.html#rewrap

RG> As for "whatever happened to 'trim to context'"...

LOL :-).

RG> Trimming only shortens text vertically. You'll still see lines
RG> get so long across from the constant addition of double, triple,
RG> and more right arrows (I can't put them in right here or else
RG> TB! thinks I'm quoting!) at the start of each line that
RG> eventually emails that have gone back and forth many times the
RG> quoting becomes problematic.

1) Press Alt-L at the moment of trimming. That usually solves the
   long line issue.
2) How long does the original comment stay relevant in a chained
   reply.

If you're talking about repeatedly forwarded jokes then I recommend
ECleaner, a little app that strips the chevrons and reformats the
text for you. Such things are beyond TB's remit.

RG> Doesn't Windows Explorer use the Micro$oft standard CTRL-Y for
RG> redo?

No. That's not a system-wide 'Redo' key. Ctrl-Shift-Z is sometimes
used too.

RG> It may. I bet NotePad does too.

No.

RG> To me none of this is an excuse for not having a redo feature in
RG> an editor.

 just trying to point at that your claim that redo is a
'standard' function is not actually correct.

MD

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Simon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello rich,

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:49:11 -0500 your time, you said:

rg> There is no need to be such a dick.

Having a tantrum are we? lol

Merry Christmas

- --
Slán,

 Simon @ i~n+f~o+w~i+z~a+r~d+.~c+o~.+u~k

*
PGP Key via Web:   http://pgp.infowizard.co.uk/
PGP Key via Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Faffing about with TB! v1.62r on W2K SP4

#2696. War Dos Lye Squirm ¶

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Protect your Privacy with PGP.
Comment: KeyID: 0xDF8062C1
Comment: Fingerprint: 40DD 7908 9DF8 634F 1B98  8849 9266 C870 DF80 62C1

iQA/AwUBP+jicJJmyHDfgGLBEQJLAACeMcjuRrfhXGFltFqiSR+F8PYmhZYAnAuA
e/0ZKZzSifMLQQZ/sWUB3KJd
=f608
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Wayne Howard]

Hello rich,

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 6:56:55 PM, you wrote
re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...:

rg> I was defending myself and now _I'm_ the abusive one. OK, you have a point,
rg> but re-read the message I was replying to and tell me who there was the
rg> abuser and abused, if you care so much.

It was your offensive language that offended me - not your argument. I
wasn't even following this particular thread. Your message was the
first that I read in this thread.

As for those who were offended that I used the words, "our Lord", I'm
sorry - there was no offense intended. (I have received several
private messages.)

In my church, that is a common expression. I did not mean it in the
exclusive sense. It is not important to me the name by which you call
your God. I would have been as offended if someone was blaspheming the
name of God of any other faith. I personally do not believe that one
faith stands before any of the others.

We have enough anger today in the world in the name of religion.
Please don't let my comments become a part of it!

-- 
Cheers!
Wayne Howard

Using The Bat! version: 2.02.3 CE



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Edgar]

Hello Maurice,

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 9:35:46 PM, you wrote:

> Business e-mail is, in my opinion, not a trivial tool. Just like
> business correspondence is not a trivial tool in doing business. I've
> heard of secretaries who are required to follow a course in official
> Dutch correspondence which is an evening course of several hours per
> week for a duration of 39 weeks.

> So, can someone explain why it is that a company pays money to have a
> secretary learn correspondence, but expects that same secretary to be
> able to properly use e-mail without any instruction or guidance? Or is
> it just that nobody cares.

I can not explain it and I'm wondering my self. Seems that e-mail
and sometimes using company databases are seen as Software that
every body know's and that "The firm" should not waste money on
training or even a manual when starting with. In my case it was
Lotus Notes. Just sending and receiving is not a big deal. But if
you would like to know more about all it features and go deeper
into how you can setup things (for a user), they mumble something
about, "there should be a 10 minute guide book somewhere around
here".

In some companies it's not just the e-mail program that is handed
to you this way, in some cases it's the ERP software ;-) with
some minor comments on what buttons you should push.

-- 
Cheers,
 Edgar

Communicating with TB! v2.02 CE, Windows 2000 5.0.2195 

If you pretend to be good, the world takes you very seriously. If
you pretend to be bad, it doesn't. Such is the astounding
stupidity of optimism. - Oscar Wilde

To request my public key select this url:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
\/
/\
  


 


  

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Wayne Howard]

Hello rich,

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 3:49:11 PM, you wrote
re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...:

No matter how frustrated you are, I would appreciate it if you did not
use our Lord's name in vain on this list. I also don't think that it's
necessary for you to get abusive to make your point.

-- 
Cheers!
Wayne Howard

Using The Bat! version: 2.02.3 CE



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Tony Mendina]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 09:51 Edgar wrote:
> I will probably never cease to be amazed by the apparently omnipresent
> expectation that all software must be either self evident or otherwise
> self explanatory.

Actually, I disagree...at least about what I think the expectations of most users of 
TheBat! are. I don't expect an email program to teach me how to type, what a POP3 
server is, how to write correctly, etc. I _do_ expect it to contain complete 
documentation about custom features and ways it differs from what I expect.

I don't think people expect software to be self-evident, but they do expect 
_the_documentation_ to be explanatory, just like they expect the instructions for 
their new power drill or their new television to be.

Myself, I don't expect there to be no learning required, but I do expect this: the 
documentation for the program should cover all of its features and most especially the 
features that are unusual or unique. Users who know how to operate email programs--in 
general--should not have to discover the features of TheBat!--in particular--by 
experiment. Moreover, some things are complex enough that a user who is exploring the 
program will never hit upon them randomly.

To use an analogy, the owner's manual  for my car doesn't discuss how to drive, or 
what gasoline is, but it does tell me where the gasoline tank is filled on _my car_, 
and it does tell me about ways in which my car might handle differently from other 
cars I'm used to. The same is true with the manual for a typewriter. It doesn't tell 
the user how to type, but it does tell the things about this particular model of 
typewriter that are different from what the user learned before.

Most software documentation I've seen is pretty disappointing, and while the help 
files for TheBat! are useful, they're just as imperfect as many others are.

Tony



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Maurice Snellen]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 09:51 Edgar wrote:

> Although the help here in this group is great, It should not need
> to exist. There should be a good help system. Companies do not
> have the time to read loads of mailing list to find out how the
> e-mail client works.

I will probably never cease to be amazed by the apparently omnipresent
expectation that all software must be either self evident or otherwise
self explanatory.

In most every profession where some kind of tool is used, it is
accepted that initially people need to learn how to use the tool
unless such use is trivial.

Business e-mail is, in my opinion, not a trivial tool. Just like
business correspondence is not a trivial tool in doing business. I've
heard of secretaries who are required to follow a course in official
Dutch correspondence which is an evening course of several hours per
week for a duration of 39 weeks.

So, can someone explain why it is that a company pays money to have a
secretary learn correspondence, but expects that same secretary to be
able to properly use e-mail without any instruction or guidance? Or is
it just that nobody cares.

-- 
Greetings,
Maurice

Using The Bat! v2.03.16 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Daniel Rail]

Hello jwayne,

Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 11:48:30 AM, you wrote:
> No, it _doesn't_ work as it should. There are basically two
> problems with the implementation as is:

> 1) Cursor position: Ctrl-Shift-Left should move the cursor word by word
> to the left, not move immediately to the beginning of the text

For cursor position, you should use CTRL-Left. CTRL-SHIFT-Left is to
select word by word going backwards, if no forward selection has
already been performed.  You'll find the same behavior in Notepad and
MS Word, and many other editors.

> 2) Selection: Ctrl-Shift-Left should unselect word by word.

Now, I see what you mean when being in the headers.

If a person selected the text going towards the right, then yes
CTRL-Shift-Left should unselect word by word while going towards the
left. But, it doesn't just move the cursor at the beginning of the
edit box, but selects from the first character up to where the cursor
is currently located.

The same observation can be made when selecting towards the left and
then using CTRL-Shift-Right to unselect while going towards the right,
it selects from the current cursor position all the way to the end of
the text, and the cursor positions itself at the end.

> Again, things work properly in the message text.

I can confirm this.  What happens is that for the edit boxes in the
header has to be specifically programmed for those behaviors.

> I'd put this down as an annoying long-time bug that needs to be fixed. But it
> doesn't bother me nearly as much as another poster in this thread.

I would suggest that you put this in the bug tracker, with as much
information and proper steps to recreate. If it's documented there,
RITLabs can't say nobody told them. Just verify, as well as you can,
that nobody already posted this bug before.

-- 
Best regards,
 Daniel Rail
 Senior Software Developer
 ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
 ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Chris]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 10:48:30 AM, jwayne wrote in the
message "2.0 Underwhelmed..."
:

> 1) Cursor position: Ctrl-Shift-Left should move the cursor word by
> word to the left, not move immediately to the beginning of the text
While selecting at the same time. To just move, Ctrl+Left should be
used.
> 2) Selection: Ctrl-Shift-Left should unselect word by word.
Actually, it depends what side of the cursor you are on. If you are on
the left of the cursor, Ctrl+Shift+Left should select. If your are one
the right of the cursor, Ctrl+Shift+Left should unselect.


-- 
Chris
Quoting when replying to this message is good for your karma.

It's hard to write foolproof software because there are so many fools,
and they are very inventive.

Using The Bat! v2.02 CE on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Edgar]

Hello Mark,

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 5:18:16 PM, you wrote:

> Of course, if a good help system were a prerequisite then nobody would
> buy any MS products. The built-in help system is certainly one of TB's
> weaker points, but the day TB comes out with one of those damn talking
> paper clips, I'm outa here...
;-)

-- 
Cheers,
 Edgar

Communicating with TB! v2.02 CE, Windows 2000 5.0.2195 

All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part
of every organism to live beyond its income. -- Samuel Butler

To request my public key select this url:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  


 


  

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Mark Wieder]

Edgar-

Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 12:51:04 AM, you wrote:

E> Although the help here in this group is great, It should not need
E> to exist. There should be a good help system. Companies do not

Of course, if a good help system were a prerequisite then nobody would
buy any MS products. The built-in help system is certainly one of TB's
weaker points, but the day TB comes out with one of those damn talking
paper clips, I'm outa here...

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Edgar]

Hello Simon,

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 1:30:21 PM, you wrote:

> shortcomings...not  that that justifies it of course. However, I don't
> believe  for  a  moment that a better help file system would make this
> list  redundant. Not a chance of it! This list is invaluable, and will
> continue  to  be  so even after/IF RIT get their act together and redo
> the manual.
True, but maybe the questions will shift a bit, to understanding
what is in the help file and what is not found there. (When they
read it, which is something entirely  different;-)).

E>> Companies  do  not  have  the time to read loads of mailing list to
E>> find out how the e-mail client works.

> Companies do not have to read "loads" of mailing lists to find out how
> The  Bat! email client works. That is misleading. There is a help file
> with  TB! and there is this list. Not exactly stretching resources now
> is it? :-/

No, but keeping up with a mailing list is more work then some can
/want to do.

> I've  shown many, many people how to use The Bat! in under 20 minutes.
> Some  of those have been new to computers and some have been veterans.
> If someone in an company IT dept. really can't work out how to use TB!
> then  they  probably need to get some other less demanding job...maybe
> basket making or something.
Is that the normal e-mail handling (make mail, send, reply) only
or with some macro's (just basic) and templates?

> I  think  if  you  dislike a product so intensely you should really be
> seeking out something else more suited to your needs. There are plenty
> of  flavours  of email client about, although they won't offer you the
> same excellent range of features that this client can.
It could be that you like the product but since there are some
things that will not work that you find important you'll get
disappointed and although you do not want to find an other mail
client (because TB! is one of the best) you still not quiet
satisfied.

> As  I  said, TB! has faults but people on this list usually attempt to
> work around them until the faults have been rectified.
Some do take a bit longer then 1 version, but all in all I agree
with your whole mail.

-- 
Cheers,
 Edgar

Communicating with TB! v2.02 CE, Windows 2000 5.0.2195 

I never lecture, not because I am shy or a bad speaker, but
simply because I detest the sort of people who go to lectures and
don't want to meet them. --H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

To request my public key select this url:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  


 


  

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Edgar]

Hello Allie,

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 1:46:55 PM, you wrote:

> Finally, the worse thing one can do, is to stubbornly insist that the
> new application do *everything* the same way the old application did.
That's true, but one could insist on that the new application
does *everything* it is suppose to do ;-)

-- 
Cheers,
 Edgar

Communicating with TB! v2.02 CE, Windows 2000 5.0.2195 

Every man of ambition has to fight his century with its own
weapons. What this century worships is wealth. The God of this
century is wealth. To succeed one must have wealth. At all costs
one must have wealth. - Oscar Wilde

To request my public key select this url:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  


 


  

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Daniel Rail]

Hello jwayne,

Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 8:20:44 AM, you wrote:

j>> ... the Ctrl-shift-left arrow keeps everything highlighted and
j>> puts the cursor at the beginning of the field.

DR>> And, I observe that it is at the end. Am I missing something?

> Yep. Try it again, comparing how it works in a message vs in a header.

Sorry, I wasn't fully awake. I tried CTRL-SHIFT-Right. I just tried
CTRL-SHIFT-Left and it works as it should, the cursor stays at the
left of the selected block of characters, since you are selecting
towards the left not the right. Notepad works the same way.
If you're comparing with MS Word, the cursor stop blinking when
performing the selection, so you can't tell where it is.

-- 
Best regards,
 Daniel Rail
 Senior Software Developer
 ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
 ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Allie Martin]

Simon, [S] wrote:

S> As I said, TB! has faults but people on this list usually attempt to
S> work around them until the faults have been rectified.

This is it. :) With software, you almost always have to make concessions
in the form of work-arounds or just doing without a particular feature.

TB! and most other software I use in a similar way, have to be used with
this in mind. Now *this* is where the list is invaluable. Even good
documentation will not contain the work-arounds and means of maximizing on
particular features. List members will suggest things you never thought
of, even though an explanation of the functionality is sitting right
there in the help files. It's one thing to explain how something works
and it's another to explore what can be done with it and how
functionality can be used to make up for shortcomings elsewhere.

Finally, the worse thing one can do, is to stubbornly insist that the
new application do *everything* the same way the old application did.

-- 
   .-""",
  /, \ -=allie_M=- | List Moderator
 {_}`{}PGP Key - http://key.ac-martin.com
(/ . . \)   ___..__
{`-=^=-`}Using TB! v2.03.11 on WinXP Pro (SP1)
{   `   }
 { } 
  `-,-`  
¯¯


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Allie Martin]

Jwayne, [J] wrote:

J> Ironic that they'd implement this important feature only in the HTML
J> editor when TB users are the most "anti-HTML for email" crowd around!

I think that MicroEd, including both alternative editors were not
written from scratch. They're grounded on established code for the
editor types with which they're similar. Undo/Redo is standard for the
other two, while MicroEd doesn't have a redo function. I guess they'd
have to code that in, and this would be good.

Furthermore, note that there's no facility for the alternative editor to
wrap text upon sending. Just another example of specific and basic
functionality that isn't there because specific coding/programming would
be needed for that.

We'll just have to wait for these things to be implemented.

-- 
   .-""",
  /, \ -=allie_M=- | List Moderator
 {_}`{}PGP Key - http://key.ac-martin.com
(/ . . \)   ___..__
{`-=^=-`}   Using TB! v2.03.11 on WinXP Pro (SP1)
{   `   }
 { } 
  `-,-`  
¯¯


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Simon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Edgar,

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:51:04 +0100 your time, you said:

E> Although  the  help here in this group is great, It should not need
E> to exist.

Hmmm, well I think that is a romantic notion myself. So these types of
support  systems  [this  list and others] exist because of the lack of
good help files with software? I really don't think so :-/ Just take a
look around the Net @ other support forums/lists and ponder a while on
some  of the dumb-arsed questions that people ask! You could construct
the  best  help  file  system  on  the planet and release it with your
software  and people will still defeat it by not 'reading the bleeping
manual' and not being able to understand the terminology used, etc. In
actual  fact, many of the questions asked on this list could easily be
answered by reading the existing support files.

E> There  should be a good help system.

Well  yes, actually I would agree with this, and have made my feelings
known about this subject in the past. Personally, I think RIT Labs are
doing The Bat! a disservice by releasing their client with the current
help  system;  although  there  is  easily  enough  information in the
current  help  file  system to get most people up and running it still
needs  revamping  and  made  more comprehensive. So IMHO The Bat! does
_need__  a  better  designed and more up-to-date help system, I agree.
But   I   can   think   of  many  excellent  programs  with  the  same
shortcomings...not  that that justifies it of course. However, I don't
believe  for  a  moment that a better help file system would make this
list  redundant. Not a chance of it! This list is invaluable, and will
continue  to  be  so even after/IF RIT get their act together and redo
the manual.

E> Companies  do  not  have  the time to read loads of mailing list to
E> find out how the e-mail client works.

Companies do not have to read "loads" of mailing lists to find out how
The  Bat! email client works. That is misleading. There is a help file
with  TB! and there is this list. Not exactly stretching resources now
is it? :-/

I've  shown many, many people how to use The Bat! in under 20 minutes.
Some  of those have been new to computers and some have been veterans.
If someone in an company IT dept. really can't work out how to use TB!
then  they  probably need to get some other less demanding job...maybe
basket making or something.

E> Being a bit more "mainstream" will at least help.

No  at  all.  Having  better help files would help a little, but those
without  prior experience, the lazy, and those in need of more complex
help will turn to a list like this one, as has always been the way.

And  yes,  I  can  understand people's criticisms, and of course it is
only  right  that  criticisms  should be made, but it irks me somewhat
when   remarks   go   beyond   fair   criticism   and   become  unfair
put-downs...that  strikes  me as being somewhat immature (not directed
at you of course).

I  think  if  you  dislike a product so intensely you should really be
seeking out something else more suited to your needs. There are plenty
of  flavours  of email client about, although they won't offer you the
same excellent range of features that this client can.

As  I  said, TB! has faults but people on this list usually attempt to
work around them until the faults have been rectified.

- --
Slán,

 Simon @ i~n+f~o+w~i+z~a+r~d+.~c+o~.+u~k

*
PGP Key via Web:   http://pgp.infowizard.co.uk/
PGP Key via Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Faffing about with TB! v1.62r on W2K SP4

#1830. Mar Qed I Sly Row Us ¶

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Protect your Privacy with PGP.
Comment: KeyID: 0xDF8062C1
Comment: Fingerprint: 40DD 7908 9DF8 634F 1B98  8849 9266 C870 DF80 62C1

iQA/AwUBP+g1YZJmyHDfgGLBEQKjTACfXqVBqSY9Byh5Liv7GNPJvtqTkpEAnio0
zVfy+LBQ2fzgX9B9yEHOtCKk
=gxJ8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Daniel Rail]

Hello Edgar,

Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 4:51:04 AM, you wrote:
> Although the help here in this group is great, It should not need
> to exist. There should be a good help system. Companies do not
> have the time to read loads of mailing list to find out how the
> e-mail client works.

Unfortunately, most of the best software I've seen on the market lacks
good documentation(especially if it's a small software company).

In our company, I develop the software and do the preliminary testing,
and my colleague does a more thorough testing and the documentation,
as well as tech support. So as you can see he knows what to put in the
documentation and how to write so our clients don't have difficulty
reading it. Yet, we still have clients that call us to ask questions on
how a feature works.  And, when we ask them if they read the help
file, the answer is that they never did.

And, I think this is the reason why some software companies don't
bother that much with writing a good help file.  But, at the same
time, if you don't have a good documentation, you might lose sales.

If RITlabs doesn't have a person that writes the documentation and
even do some testing at the same time, then it might be beneficial to
think about it.

This is just my 2 cents.

-- 
Best regards,
 Daniel Rail
 Senior Software Developer
 ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
 ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Daniel Rail]

Hello Jurgen,

Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 3:28:06 AM, you wrote:

j ... the Ctrl-shift-left arrow keeps everything highlighted and
j puts the cursor at the beginning of the field.

And, I observe that it is at the end. Am I missing something?

> well, I would also say it's unprofessional, and I (as a non
> programmer) keep wondering how hard it can be to implement a redo
> function properly.

It's only in the "Plain Text(MicroEd)" editor that the Redo function
is not implemented.  It is implemented in the other editors.

-- 
Best regards,
 Daniel Rail
 Senior Software Developer
 ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
 ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Edgar]

Hello Simon,

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 1:41:49 AM, you wrote:

> The  benefit  of  using  an excellent client like TB! is that it ISN'T
> always  completely 'mainstream', and so it does require users to learn
> how  to  use  some  of  it's  many useful features. And TB! is rich in
> features,  unlike  other  clients  I won't mention. Although TB! isn't
> perfect,  because  nothing  is, it stands head and shoulders above the
> competition.

Although the help here in this group is great, It should not need
to exist. There should be a good help system. Companies do not
have the time to read loads of mailing list to find out how the
e-mail client works.

Being a bit more "mainstream" will at least help.

-- 
Cheers,
 Edgar

Communicating with TB! v2.02 CE, Windows 2000 5.0.2195 

When it's fall in New York, the air smells like as if someone's
been frying goats in it, and if you are keen to breath the best
plan is to open a window and stick your head in a building. --
Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

To request my public key select this url:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  


 


  

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE:2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Marck,

Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 1:14:24 AM, you wrote:


> @22-Dec-2003, 18:29 -0500 (22-Dec 23:29 UK time) rich gregory [RG]
> in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to jwayne:

j>>> ... the Ctrl-shift-left arrow keeps everything highlighted and
j>>> puts the cursor at the beginning of the field.

RG>> This is one of my BIGGEST complaints with TB. Though I use TB
RG>> myself (and put up with it's numerous oddities) I could never
RG>> recommend this product to any clients as this sort of thing
RG>> (among others) is just too unprofessional.

> I would certainly not let the way a minor edit field implementation
> hold me back from heartily recommending TB to anyone, anytime. This
> is such a tiny flaw compared to more serious issues with the HTML
> generated by the HTML editor for instance (not that I use it that
> often) or the loss of folder some have experienced during some of
> the beta cycles.

I would *love* to try get my boss into TB! and maybe switch the whole office, but at 
least let ME have TB! at work, but as long as the HTML implementation is in such a bad 
shape, i can't. Fun is, HTML mail is a must at work *sigh*. So I have to keep working 
with Outbook 2000.


RG>> Again, both are quite unprofessional.

> That's harsh. Yes, redo should be there I suppose. If I implement an
> undo function I implement a redo at the same time. But I wouldn't go
> so far as to say "Unprofessional". NotePad has no redo. DOpus has no
> redo. RegEdit has Neither undo nor redo. Windows Explorer has no
> redo.

> As a rule, most software whose main purpose is editing has both undo
> and redo. TB's main function is mail receive and read, not editing.
> I'll bet you receive over 10 times the number of mails you write.
> Undo doesn't figure there.

well, I would also say it's unprofessional, and I (as a non programmer) keep wondering 
how hard it can be to implement a redo function properly. But I would also say it's 
just one out of the long list of minor annoyances compared to the equally long list of 
GREAT items. The only real insect in TB! for me is the HTML stuff. I am not really 
using IMAP...

-- 
Regards,
 Jurgen

"It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind.  For men it's called lying."

Using The Bat! v2.02.3 CE, Opera v7.23.3227 on Win.XP.5.1.2600.SP1 

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Arjan de Groot]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:14:24 +, Marck D Pearlstone wrote:

[Unprofessionalisms in TB!]

> To me, it sounds almost like fussing about the bad design of
> the indicator stalk in a Ferrari.

Your insertion of the word "almost" made me sigh with relief. ;-)

(I wouldn't dream of buying a Ferrari model of which the steering
column or gearbox is still "in beta testing".)


Arjan (dreaming of buying a Ferrari)
-- 




Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Simon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello rich,

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:29:19 -0500 your time, you said:

rg> Again, both are quite unprofessional.

What  a  load of nonsensical claptrap! I've read some comments on this
list  over  the  years but my word, these last few remarks really take
the  biscuit. There is nothing 'unprofessional' about the way The Bat!
editor  functions,  and I must say it is a very discouraging choice of
wording.

There  are distinctive ways of doing things in TB! but those ways work
well  once you have adapted to them. There is plenty of help available
on  this  list  to  assist  new users in moving to The Bat! from other
email  clients,  and  the  people offering advice obviously appreciate
that it can take a while to complete the transition, and come to terms
with the new environment. But you have to at the least appreciate that
_every_  email client has it's unique points, and TB! is no exception.
If you want really decide that you want TB! to be another email client
then switch to that.

The  benefit  of  using  an excellent client like TB! is that it ISN'T
always  completely 'mainstream', and so it does require users to learn
how  to  use  some  of  it's  many useful features. And TB! is rich in
features,  unlike  other  clients  I won't mention. Although TB! isn't
perfect,  because  nothing  is, it stands head and shoulders above the
competition.

I  think  it  is  perfectly  fine  to  discuss  the disadvantages of a
program,  and  talk  about  its  ideal  features,  etc. but it's a bit
unnecessary,   unhelpful,   and   even   disrespectful,   IMO,  to  be
hypercritical  for  the  sake of it. Anyone would think you, and a few
others, were being forced to use TB! rather than using it by choice.

Merry Christmas.

- --
Slán,

 Simon @ i~n+f~o+w~i+z~a+r~d+.~c+o~.+u~k

*
PGP Key via Web:   http://pgp.infowizard.co.uk/
PGP Key via Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Faffing about with TB! v1.62r on W2K SP4

#1532. Law Dey Irs Mrs Quo ¶

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Protect your Privacy with PGP.
Comment: KeyID: 0xDF8062C1
Comment: Fingerprint: 40DD 7908 9DF8 634F 1B98  8849 9266 C870 DF80 62C1

iQA/AwUBP+ePUZJmyHDfgGLBEQLTMACdEQHRqjyenm0dtvsN3xDFwEYX3cQAn27o
NEjiokBBIRlIO38IO5yMTU1J
=BqAJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Hi Rich,

@22-Dec-2003, 18:29 -0500 (22-Dec 23:29 UK time) rich gregory [RG]
in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to jwayne:

j>> ... the Ctrl-shift-left arrow keeps everything highlighted and
j>> puts the cursor at the beginning of the field.

RG> This is one of my BIGGEST complaints with TB. Though I use TB
RG> myself (and put up with it's numerous oddities) I could never
RG> recommend this product to any clients as this sort of thing
RG> (among others) is just too unprofessional.

I would certainly not let the way a minor edit field implementation
hold me back from heartily recommending TB to anyone, anytime. This
is such a tiny flaw compared to more serious issues with the HTML
generated by the HTML editor for instance (not that I use it that
often) or the loss of folder some have experienced during some of
the beta cycles.

Compare the usefulness of the header editing area with the sheer
power of the always safe HTML rendering, the AB template macro
system, regular expression automated data extraction, reliability of
the message base. To me, it sounds almost like fussing about the bad
design of the indicator stalk in a Ferrari.

To deprive people of the recommendation of the power and safety
inherent in TB over so petty a problem seems strange to me.

j>> You still can't reformat lots of text at time.

Mark, cut, paste formatted. Done. So, yes you can.

j>> Alt-L, ... If you highlight more than one paragraph at a time,
j>> it will join them together and reformat so that doesn't work.

... which is what it is designed to do - re-wrap the marked text
into a single paragraph.

j>> Paste Formatted doesn't work at all if the original text has
j>> indentations.

That's not my experience.
 
RG> Also a big problem with the formatting is that as quoted lines
RG> get longer and longer with each reply

Not if you reformat them. Either use the recursive wrap template
macro published in the Library (which is what I personally use) or
manually Alt-L for each paragraph to which you are replying.

RG> (what with all the >>>s getting added) the wrap ceases to
RG> properly attribute the quote to the proper author. That REALLY
RG> sucks, especially when you have a very long email to now correct
RG> the quotes for.

Erm - whatever happened to "trim to context"?

j>> There is undo but no redo. Something that is pretty much
j>> standard in any decent editor these days.

RG> Again, both are quite unprofessional.

That's harsh. Yes, redo should be there I suppose. If I implement an
undo function I implement a redo at the same time. But I wouldn't go
so far as to say "Unprofessional". NotePad has no redo. DOpus has no
redo. RegEdit has Neither undo nor redo. Windows Explorer has no
redo.

As a rule, most software whose main purpose is editing has both undo
and redo. TB's main function is mail receive and read, not editing.
I'll bet you receive over 10 times the number of mails you write.
Undo doesn't figure there.

I understand that you have a low opinion with regard to TB and a
right to have it. Mine differs.

-- 
Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator
TB! v2.03.10 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1
'

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[rich gregory]

j> However, this does not work properly in any The Bat message header field
j> (To, Subject, etc); the Ctrl-shift-left arrow keeps everything highlighted
j> and puts the cursor at the beginning of the field.

This is one of my BIGGEST complaints with TB. Though I use TB myself (and put
up with it's numerous oddities) I could never recommend this product to any
clients as this sort of thing (among others) is just too unprofessional.


j> You still can't reformat lots of text at time. Alt-L, for example places
j> the cursor at the beginning of the paragraph just formatted and one has to
j> cursor down to the next paragraph to do that one. If you highlight more
j> than one paragraph at a time, it will join them together and reformat so
j> that doesn't work. Paste Formatted doesn't work at all if the original
j> text has indentations.

Also a big problem with the formatting is that as quoted lines get longer and
longer with each reply (what with all the >>>s getting added) the wrap
ceases to properly attribute the quote to the proper author. That REALLY
sucks, especially when you have a very long email to now correct the quotes
for.


j> There is undo but no redo. Something that is pretty much standard in any
j> decent editor these days.

Again, both are quite unprofessional.


-- 
Rich



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: 2.0 Underwhelmed...

[Marek Mikus]

Hello all,
Monday, December 22, 2003, jwayne wrote:

> Just upgraded to 2.0 and am definitely underwhelmed.

> First, I was quite surprised that bugs in the 1.x version reported over a year
> ago haven't been addressed.

> Here are two of 'em:

> 1) Paste in any header field (e.g., To: or Subject:). Ctrl-V or right-click
> paste works OK, Edit|Paste pastes the text into the message!

You have right, but when and where did You reported this problem?

> 2) Ctrl-shift-right arrow and Ctrl-shift-left arrow are standard key combos to
> highlight words to copy or cut text. In The Bat, this works properly when in the
> message area: Ctrl-shift-right arrow will select text word by word,
> Ctrl-shift-left arrow will the undo the selection word by word. This is how ALL
> Windows editors and dialog boxes behave, almost without exception. However, this
> does not work properly in any The Bat message header field (To, Subject, etc); the
> Ctrl-shift-left arrow keeps everything highlighted and puts the cursor at the
> beginning of the field.

I am not sure, if is possible to change this behaviour.

> Were there ANY improvements in the editor?

not in plain text editor AFAIK, but new Windows and HTML editors were
added.

> 1) You still can't reformat lots of text at time. Alt-L, for example places the
> cursor at the beginning of the paragraph just formatted and one has to cursor
> down to the next paragraph to do that one. If you highlight more than one
> paragraph at a time, it will join them together and reformat so that doesn't
> work. Paste Formatted doesn't work at all if the original text has indentations.

> 2) There is undo but no redo. Something that is pretty much standard in any
> decent editor these days.

new HTML editor has Redo function implemented.

> Window dressing on the message search and it's now more user-UNfriendly.

> 1) It's a real pain in the butt to search over all accounts because you have to
> scroll down, checking each account, rather than clicking a single checkbox.

You can use right mouse button and select where You want to search.

> 2) It still doesn't save the state of the last search (like Reg Ex).

in menu "Edit | Use previous conditions" You can select last search
conditions.

> A Scheduler? TB is a GREAT email program, and that's where the focus should be.
> There are much better schedulers out there and I haven't a clue why the authors
> thought to include such functionality (apart from scheduling email related
> tasks.)

for scheduled sending, archiving, connecting to internet etc.

-- 

Bye

Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!
http://www.thebat.cz

Using the best The Bat! 2.03.15
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
AMD ThunderBird 1,2 GHz, 512 MB RAM



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html