Re: Simplification of preferences

  > I very strongly disagree. I would have to stop upgrading and
> participating here and keep the current version if you made those 
> changes.
Or maybe you wold like it even more because it would be more stable, run 
faster, be easier to use etc.

> On 2002.11.13 22:48 Toralf wrote:
>> Mail Options
>>   Incoming
>>     Check IMAP/Check INBOX only
>>       Never liked these. I'd prefer being able to choose between e.g.
>>       1. Check all folders
>>       2. Check open folders
>>       3. Check current (viewed) folder
>>       But perhaps we could remove the setting and agree on one mode, 
>> like
>>       2. above.
> Definitely needed. There must be a way to disable checking of IMAP 
> servers for people like me who use IMAP for shared storage, but never 
> receive mail there. I don't really like having new messages shown when I 
> only move messages to IMAP, but that is exactly what would happen.
The mailbox isn't open (from a GUI perspective) or "current" then, is it?

> I then would have to open each folder in turn to make the new message 
> indication go away again. With folders of 8000+ messages, it would be 
> extremely time-consuming. Without the ability to inhibit IMAP checks, it 
> would be unworkable.
I've actually partially implemented my options in Balsa 1.4, and I have 
many IMAP folders with several 1000 messages. No problem, as those usually 
won't be checked - they are included only if I happen to be viewing them, 
in which case I *want* to check them.

The default preference setup gives me a lot more pain as I can *never* 
check anything but INBOX because checking *all* mailboxes (the only other 
alternative) is simply not an option.

Anyhow, I'm not going to argue about all the individual points right now, 
but just say
- Read


> I believe that removing any but the debugging prefs would make Balsa 
> poorer. With a logical layout. all the existing prefs could be well 
> placed and new ones added in a consistent fashion. I like software that 
> is highly customizable, a program like a mail cilent, that is a major 
> part of my daily productive work, needs to be able to adapt to the way I 
> work as much as possible. If a software cramps my style, I have to look 
> for another that doesn't. Software shouldn't force people to do things 
> in certain ways, it should adapt to all the various way peoples minds 
> are organized.
Yes. In an ideal world, at least.

In the real world, more prefs mean more things that can go wrong, more 
code that has to be understood if you want to make changes (and more room 
for misunderstandings), more test cases etc. They also make it harder to 
design a simple and efficient user interface. 
> There can never be enough prefs. Some can be moved to "Advanced..." 
> sub-dialogs, but removing prefs is, IMHO, always a bad choice.
KISS, remember?

> Also, I think that on none of these options you are considering to 
> remove, all people on this list could agree to a hardcoded setting.
> There are so many differences in the way even the few people on this 
> list work that I don't think that a sensible setting for each can be 
> found, that all can agree to.
Of course everyone wouldn't agree. The downside to removing options would 
be that some of *my* favourites might be gone. The idea of doing it would 
be that everyone would benefit from a leaner, more stable and 
easier-to-use app.

- Toralf

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]