Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: Evolution Context Menus (status report)

[Benjamin Kahn <xkahn ximian com>]

Hi Guenther,
	You've got some great comments.  Once again, let me reply inline.  :^)

On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 02:41 +0100, guenther wrote:
> Just a couple of notes. This sure is work in progress, and dealing with
> it already gave me some headache. (Caveat: I had a look at a mockup
> which wasn't available as screenshots on the website yet. So YMMV, but
> Benjamin should know what I'm talking about at least.)

	Yup.  I apologize that the latest mockup hasn't been available.  I'll
blog this on codeblogs in a moment with the latest version so everyone
can see what we're talking about.

> First of all: I do like the general idea of re-arranging the menus,
> especially bits like the Folder and Message menus.
> 
> Anyway, I fail to see the logic behind it some times. Where do you draw
> the line?
> 
> There is a sub-menu "Message / Mark As", which sure acts on mails.
> Marking a mail as important, read or unread is an operation on a mail.
> Agreed.
> 
> But why should deleting and undeleting a mail not be such an operation?
> They are in the Edit menu now (current mockup), although they are
> operations on a mail, too -- and no editing at all. The action even is
> named "Delete Message".

	Yes.  This bugs me too.  I've been afraid that people will look for
Delete in the Edit menu.  I think this is something that comes down to
user testing.

> Folder / Mark Messages as Read
> 
> This is misleading. It should clearly state that it marks *all* messages
> as read, which it is currently.

	I agree.  I think the label simply got too long though.  I'll try it
with the longer label though.

> Folder / Select All Messages
> Edit / Select All
> 
> This is redundant, isn't it? Is selecting all messages really an Edit
> operation? Even worse, there is an "Edit / Unselect All" operation, but
> no such equivalent in the Folder menu.

	Select All selects all the text in the message, Select All Messages
selects all the messages in a folder.  Two different operations.
Evolution didn't have the former before.

> Message / Reply to Author
> 
> "Reply to Author" actually is a good idea, to finally empower the user
> to work around braindead mailing lists that hijack the Reply-To header.
> Anyway, the accelerator MUST NOT be the same as is currently used for
> "Reply to All" (Shift-Ctrl-R).
> 
> Message / Reply *
> 
> The icon used for Reply is the one currently used for Reply To All. The
> icon for Reply to Author currently is Reply to Sender (which is renamed
> to "Reply" only in the new UI).
> 
> In short: Please don't change neither icons nor accelerators (!) of such
> fundamental operations, unless you have a *really* good reason to.

	Umm...  You're probably right.

> View / Message Display (currently, not the mockup)
> 
> This is messed up in the mockup. Having "View / All Message Headers" as
> an toggle option, and "View / Message Source" as an individual option,
> gives us exactly one option more than we currently have:
>   View Message Source *without* Full Headers
> 
> Do we want that at all? I don't think so, viewing the Source without the
> full headers should not be offered. If a (power) user wants to see the
> message source, he most likely wants to see the entire source always.

	Ah!  View Message Source opens the message in a new window (possibly
gedit or something similar) with the complete message source.  We are
losing some functionality here -- you can't switch to source MODE where
all messages are shown as source.

> File / Empty Trash
> File / Forget Passwords
> 
> I don't think those operations belong to the File menu. Aren't they like
> tools? (see below)
> 
> 
> Tools
> 
> In the particular mockup version I got, the Tools menu isn't properly
> named. It should be Components, as it's only contents are exactly this,
> the components.
> 
> Anyway, I think Tools is good, and this naming leaves some room to
> extend this menu. As already mentioned, I would propose "Empty Trash"
> and "Forget Passwords" to be shifted to the Tools menu, rather than
> File. Even if you think it doesn't fit good, does it fit any better into
> File?

	I'd buy this, but might want to see some user testing first.  I'd also
be swayed by other people who agree.  :^)

> View / Filter Messages
> 
> As already discussed on IRC, this should not be Filter. Filters (current
> naming, see below for Filters vs. Rules) are applied to new received
> mails automatically (if enabled) or manually by "Message / Apply
> Filters". Don't use the same name for different things.
> 
> I still don't know a better word. Maybe the "Rules" you and Rodney came
> up with aren't that bad at all... *shrug*
> 
> Uhm, or maybe the other way around?
> 
> Rules are "general rules" that can be applied to (incoming) messages, if
> the rules match (thus the thing formerly known as Filters).
> 
> A Filter is something that allows special parts to pass only. Like
> applying Filters, to filter out some mails the user doesn't want to see
> this very moment. Which would be the Searches named thingy before (and
> in current mockups called Filter as well).
> 
> But then, I still like the Saved Searches, cause it just is that. There
> is a Search bar, and you can have the very same Searches saved for later
> usage. Or is this really a Filter Bar or even a Rules Bar?
> 
> 
> Then there is the confusion of vFolders being renamed. To Search
> Folders. Yuck...

	This can get kind of heated.  Just to note, Thunderbird calls this
menu: View -> Messages.  I find that a little confusing, but it does
create a complete sentence:  View -> Messages -> Unread

> Leaving the detailed order or the options as an exercise for later, once
> we at least settled on the main menu structure and where those
> operations belong...