Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Marc Vaillant wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 15:59:51 -0500 -=
> "{...} ... only thing is, you know that feature that everyone in
> the office loves to use with their clients, well you have to
> tell them not to use it."
How do you know they "love it"?
There is active love/ choice and passive (meaning they don't
care enough to find (better) alternatives and stick with the 1st).
Do they really love it or are just stuck with what came 1st?
If they turned it on actively or by order/ restrictions, then of
course you're out of look. But very often average users just use
(possibly stupid) defaults or don't care enough _on their own_.
All I asked for was to find out whether they _really_ "love" it and
_chose_ to use it over something else. And if it doesn't matter to
them anyway, whether they'd click the box.
I argued that we mutters just _assumed_ but didn't _know_ why your
OL'ers send eMail the way they do, and speculated that it was just
some **** default (either by software or admin):
Don't speculate, get facts.
I.e. no obligation nor conscious preference over something else
but just "that's how things are", unaware of alternatives.
And that you could alleviate this html sickness by merely asking
for a neglectable favour and it be granted without a fuss.
> The reality is that they're going to be thinking "Why would
> anyone be using a client that crippled them in that way?" And if
> that's what they're thinking then they're not going to have the
> view of "interoperability" that you suggest, they're going to
> view mutt as a program that doesn't (fully) support an
> "interoperable" standard like html.
Heh, I told you about 2), so mutt supports html fully,
no reason to think it's crippled. You can choose whatever browser
and editor you want for messing up your mail as html.
> Shouldn't the mutt developer take your point of view and be
> interested in improvement to better succeed?
But html-ability is no quality of plain text eMail interoperability
anyway. Mutt works already with commonly agreed on _open_ standards
based on "best practice" (more or less well thought out guidelines),
what else do you want?
Appease proprietary OL silly defaults? Just because it's default
MUA on most used proprietary OS? Establish a silly propietary
standard just because it's used by the masses of users unaware of
a better way or too lazy to make a "click" to achieve it?
Isn't it better to tell those users so they get a chance to
improve, or at least let them decide for themselves?
No need to be pessimistic here: people can understand and change
when well explained/ prepared and made easy for them.
If you want OL (and its policy), use OL.
OL's way just isn't mutt's way.
(have you noted MUA/MTA, editor, viewer separation in mutt, not in OL?)
If it's the text that matters which they want to send,
then plain text should be enough: let the reader apply visual aids
as desired, not hard-code it in the data.
Is the color-feature even used? Do the OL'ers among each other
look at the quoted stuff themselves?
If not, then why bother sending it in html (or at all)?
> In reality, it's mutt's success in retaining and building a user
> base that's more in jeopardy than my company loosing potential
> business with mutters.
(not just mutters, but anyway)
Mutt doesn't want to make money, but make mail users happy in the
long run. OL just makes people happy in the short run because they
believe they "save something" by not spending the necessary time
to setup their mail- environment for long term usage.
What they save in the beginning they lose later.
Aside from efficiency it's also about control: the more you rely
on ready-to-use defaults and technical requirements, the more you
depend on them. At some point it's too late to resist the power of
the lazy mass and you have to keep following their direction, no
matter how bad it turns. Better jump off early.
Simple info like plain text should be as simple to access.
Making things unnecessarily harder is just waste of resources.
Oh, and we're talking about you, not your company. :)
That your company benefits from you being more efficient and
generally mails sent outside of the company are easier to read is
just a side-effect.
> Even if they are friendly and comply, ultimately it works
> against you (see above).
I'm sorry, explain, I don't see how it works against you when 2 sides
agree on a common course that helps both by making things simpler.
> I'm not afraid to ask, I'm just wise enough to know that its
> futile, or worse, detrimental.
How do you know that before actually getting confirmation from them?!
My experiences are the opposite: especially people who have no own
preference are readily granting favours if it's not too much for
them, being small enough like clicking some box or a temporary
change, not affecting the habits.
> > Often enough it only takes just a little to gain a lot.
> > The sad thing is people are too scared to make even smallest steps
> > and see the big gain that lies behind it.
>
> Yes, but equally sad are those who waste their lives pipe
> dreaming. Having enough foresight to know which battles will
> bring gain sorts the successful from the unsuccessful.
*laughs*
Again, where from comes your "foresight"? Just because you're few
and they are many? Of course you can't change it all at once, but
1 after the other.
Reason requires patience to make a lazy mass learn.
You give up before trying something that doesn't cost you much or
anything like asking, which could be granted to you for nothing?
You'd rather keep suffering or take the pains of a work- around
than fix the source of the problem for "free"?
(I still don't see the detrimental or worse effect of just asking.
Is learning something new/ facts bad, worse than prejudice?)
If you don't believe in change, why try it with mutt?
Just stick with OL-noise as it is and ignore what doesn't please
you. But will you like what results from this when you pass the
chance to change when it was possible now?
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.