On 08/04/09 00:11, clipka wrote:
> While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid
> from the usability point of view, as probably everyone who re-installed
> Windows (carefully backing up the whole hard disk first), and then
> decided to switch over from Outlook to TB in the process, will happily
> confirm for sure.

	Such people are few and far between. It's quite unlikely that a Windows 
user will switch to TB right after reinstalling Windows.

> Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to
> read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid
> would *that* be? :-P

	Because Microsoft Word was being used heavily by the majority. 
Outlook's market capture is not even close. It's a small price to pay to 
ignore Outlook.
	
> Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use
> of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
> _underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web interface.

	*Don't!*

	There are still plenty of folks whose clients don't have HTML support, 
or stubborn oldtimers like me who disable HTML in their newsreaders.

	I don't know about the web interface, but if someone does *bold*, 
/italics/ or _underline_, my news reader will render it appropriately 
(albeit without removing the delimeters). Just write it this way and let 
the people set their newsreader behavior the way they want it.

-- 
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."

Post a reply to this message