Re: Balsa 2.2.0 end user impressions

[Peter Bloomfield <PeterBloomfield bellsouth net>]

On 07/20/2004 12:08:50 PM, Joacher wrote:
> Peter Bloomfield wrote:
>
> > Balsa does need one local mailbox: the outbox is a temporary   
> > holding place for outbound mail, and must be accessible even  
> > when the imap server isn't.
>
> Is it like a temporary cache or how have I to understand this?

Yes, a temporary cache.

> > As noted, Balsa wants a local outbox.  But perhaps it should  
> > be omitted from the mailbox list except on explicit request-- 
> > in principle, you should never need to go into it.
>
> In my amateurish understanding a MUA doesn't have to care if a  
> going to be sent mail is stored locally or by IMAP.

No--but a user cares if an outgoing message is lost!  If outbox  
is on an imap server, and the server can't be reached, the  
message will be lost when you exit Balsa (saving it as a draft  
prolly isn't an option, as the draftbox may be on the same  
server).  Requiring outbox to be local is just a way of  
minimizing the chance of that.

> What am I supposed to do if my sending fails and I am leaving  
> the computer, knowing, that I won't return for a couple of  
> days? With balsa 2.2.0 I would move the mail from outbox to  
> imap->drafts, so I can cover this subject later via webmail  
> frontend. Hiding outbox removes this option.

Yes--hiding it would only be cosmetic, and showing it would have  
to be an option.

> Is there really no way to have outbox serversided?

It can be serverside--there's no technical obstacle.  We'd just  
need some way to make sure that even a novice user understands  
the risk.

[ utf-8 issues snipped ]

> > Do you  have any suggestions for improving the (find) dialog?
>
> As I mentioned in my first post, a dedicated search line like  
> mozilla has is very comfortable. Not just that you don't have  
> to popup a special dialog, it intuitivly makes it clear that  
> this is a temporary filter applied to the current mailbox.

Is there a screenshot somewhere?  I'd rather not install mozmail  
just to see the UI!

> The "Find" options in the "View" menu are to search the body of  
> the mail, which makes sense, too IMHO.

In the current message? Yes, Balsa's missing that capability, and  
needs it.

> > "Save entire message" could  be added to the message menu--but  
> > there's always pressure to keep  the menus shorter, too!
>
> "Save entire message" is the only button found in the menu,  
> "Save message part" can be handled via context menu.

Iirc, the HIG suggests that capabilities shouldn't be found only  
on context menus.  Of course, we're not 100% HIG-compliant...
[ snip ]

> > Another default hot key I am missing is the del key for  
> > deleting messages (currently: D).
> >
> > Adding del as an alternative key is easy--we'd want to keep  
> > `D' as the published binding.  Again, does anyone know of any  
> > Gnome/ HIG issues?
>
> That's strange. I mean, my computer has mostly "general  
> purpose" keys, just very few have a dedicated use. The "DEL"  
> key is one of them, there is a clear function assigned to it.  
> Please, tell me how I should explain to my father, why the DEL  
> key isn't deleting anything, but the key, which is meant to  
> write a "D", covers this functionality.
> I know, the concept of virtually mapping functionality to gp  
> keys is quite common, due to the fact there are no alternatives  
> - there is no SAVE key, QUIT-, REPLY-, OPEN-, WHATEVER key  
> attached to a keyboard. But there is a DEL key, we should give  
> at least this one the function it pretends to have.

Yes--it's a strange oversight--perhaps someone can fill in some  
history.

Peter