Re: [Evolution] Reading threads

[Lonnie Borntreger <email borntreger com>]

On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 22:34, Rob Walker wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 19:53, Lonnie Borntreger wrote:
> > So... the comment was that sorted by date follows the date field, in the
> > direction of the sort.  If newest is at the top, then "next" is "up" not
> > "down".
>
> > For what it's worth, I agree with you, as do many developers of other
> > email clients.
>
> What do you think it should do when the sort is not by the date fields,
> but rather sorted by one of the other fields?

It should always follow the order of the sort.  If sorted by subject (or
from), "next" or "delete" should always go to the next alphabetical
message, even if that happens to be in the "up" direction. B always
follows A, even if the view changes.

However, that is based on the design assumption that the sorting (and
direction thereof) on fields is due to the user wanting to view AND
process the information in an different order.

If the design assumption is that the sorting only affects the viewing,
and the folder should always be processed "top to bottom", then "next"
is always "down" and "previous" is always "up".

Both meet the requirement of "go to the next message", just the design
assumption of what really is "next" is different - thus the current
implementation.

If coding can be called art, then the above shows that software design
is like philosophy.  Take the same requirement, and you can get many
different - yet completely valid - interpretations of how that
requirement should be implemented.

Wow! that was beautiful.... [sniff].... I LOVE my occupation.... but I
digress.


-- 
TTFN,
Lonnie Borntreger