Re: [evolution-patches] fix for bug #43241

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 04:36 +0200, guenther wrote:
> The whole bug is on UI issues. Although this issue has the potential to
> confuse users and enable them to make wrong decisions, screw up their
> ordering and getting lost.

There should at least be a warning if Evolution is saving mail into the
local Sent folder instead of the configured IMAP folder. Why is this not
sufficient?

I agree that it's a little strange -- especially in the case of a
disabled outgoing-only account -- that it doesn't remove the option from
the drop-down list in the From: header, but I don't think it's really
likely to cause confusion.

Perhaps we could warn on _selection_ of the address, rather than on
send?

> > Do not screw me over for the sake of the lowest common denominator. :)
> 
> I really don't intend to screw you over. I wanna make the UI consistent
> and prevent the untaught user to shoot them self in the foot.
> Unfortunately, this targets seem to conflict...

No they don't. The _untaught_ user is fine with a warning along the
lines of "You are sending mail from a disabled account. I can't talk to
the IMAP server so I'm storing your sent mail in the local Sent folder.
You might want to move it later. Do you want me to tell you this if you
do it again?"

The _lobotomised_ user might have a problem with that. I don't think
that's an issue we really have to care about too much. Those with truly
zero clue are unlikely to have more than one account, one of which is
disabled. 

> Hey, I managed to pass Jeff and even got a fine patch by him -- don't
> think convincing Jeff is easy. ;-)  Now, there isn't only Anna wanting
> to get user feedback, but you depending on this "feature", to hold back
> that patch...

Heh; sorry. I feel your pain -- honest :)

> So you are using and depending on not intended side-effects of a falsely
> labeled function? Isn't that considered bad coding style? ;-))

Well, yes -- but your metaphor is a little far-fetched. As a user of a
piece of software, I've observed that I can make it do what I want when
the network breaks -- let me send mail from me work without actually
being able to _read_ mail for me work  

I'd _rather_ Evo didn't just break when one of its many IMAP servers is
unavailable, so I didn't _have_ to disable the account. I shall be
looking into that. But in the meantime, I see no reason to remove the
feature which allows me to use Evo instead of pine while the network is
down.

I appreciate that usability is a very valid concern, and I'm impressed
with how easily my father, for example, can actually use Evolution.

But he has only one account which is never disabled. He never does
_anything_ interesting, and certainly never looks at the configuration
options.

Removing (or hiding, or blocking the addition of) useful _features_ in
order to avoid confusion for the non-technical users would probably
never even have _noticed_ them seems a little over the top.

What are you going to do next? Come to my house and observe I haven't
got a doorbell, claim it might confuse people and hence remove the front
door?

> If this bug shall not be fixed due to veto by the responsible persons, I
> can live with it...

I don't have a veto -- I'm just heckling. :)
It's not me you have to convince. 

Besides, I'd be happy to see this made more consistent -- but preferably
only when there's a replacement way to send mail from an account for
which the IMAP server isn't currently reachable.

-- 
dwmw2