Re: [Evolution] Evolution on 64 bits Linux system

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> Of course top-posting does make sense to the vast majority of office
> workers.  Generally they must have some idea of what the question was,
> perhaps from the subject-line or because of who (or which list) is
> responding.  Also it is possible to answer a question in such a way
> that gives clues about what the question was.  

I would, personally, disagree that it makes sense - it is a consequence
of the default settings of the default mail client (i.e. in-line
quoting, signature above previous message and so on).  In order to
accommodate such settings, people get in to the habit of writing replies
such that the answer includes the question - or worse just put a "yes"
or "no" at the top without any context.  It would make more sense to
intersperse their answers after the questions, but most people just
accept the default and work around it, or can't be bothered to (or don't
know you can) change the quoting style.  And thus it becomes the "norm".

> I'm sorry there is this huge disconnect between potential users and
> the geeky places where they might otherwise have been able to get
> help.  It's just another blocker that prevents normal office workers
> from potentially using this office program.  If you need to increase
> market-share or attract or maybe convert people then bottom-posting is
> one of the blockers.  Just something to mull over.  It doesn't bother
> me either way, top bottom or middle is all fine with me.  

I think you've got something a bit skewed here.  Nobody is saying that
in order to use Evo you must not top post - what people do in the
privacy of their own office is of no concern of Evo - it's not a
"blocker" in any way.  All that people are saying is that in the context
of a mailing list top posting is more of a nuisance than elsewhere;
there are often multiple answers and discussions of a single point from
multiple people and trying to follow them by scrolling down to see what
particular aspect you are talking about in a complex discussion can get
very difficult - interspersing comments in the context of what they
refer to makes it much easier to understand.

All types of "communities" on the net have their traditions or norms -
posting to a forum is very different to posting to a mailing list which
is different to commenting on a blog which is different to Facebook or
Twitter.  Even within a genre there can be differences depending on the
topic - for example, in Usenet there are different norms between the
alt.* and comp.* hierarchy - and god help you if you get it wrong.  When
interacting with a community, especially when you are soliciting answers
to a question, it is surely only polite to try and conform to the local
norms whether it be on the net or IRL.

I'm also a bit dubious about the concept of an office-based end user
asking for help on a mailing list - my experience is that they will
virtually always ask a colleague or pluck up the courage to ask IT
Support (who might then go on the net to find the answer), but they will
never delve into the nasty world of the internet to find out something.

Overall I think you are getting wound up about something that is largely
a non-issue.  Usually what happens is if someone top posts they will
politely be asked not to do it in future - there's no flaming, no agro,
no contempt.  Most people are happy to comply.  It's only when someone
overtly refuses does it start winding people up and it turns into an
"issue".  We may be a bit grumpy at times here, but we are not,
generally, unfriendly.

P.