>> Being able to configure which columns show up isn't exactly an
>> advanced feature. It's a basic function of the software.
>
> I'm honestly rather surprised it's not built into the GUI at a
> fundamental level like scrolling is. :-)

Well, yeah, you would think...

Then again, how many programs have you seen where you can't even resize 
a window?

My favourite is the one where you see what user profiles are on your 
computer. My Computer > Properties > Advanced > User Profiles. You get a 
great big window, with a tiny little scrollable list in the middle, and 
there's no way to resize either the list or the window itself. I mean, 
really, WTF?

(Maybe they fixed that in Vista. I don't know.)

Post a reply to this message

> On 2-9-2010 14:43, Francois Labreque wrote:

>>> I just updated to Thunderbird 3.1.2
>>>
>>> It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the
>>> functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most
>>> particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than
>>> the toolbar, which means the header is bigger now. In other words,
>>> you've got the thread list at the top, the message at the bottom, and a
>>> large useless grey header bar wasting space in the middle. Great.
>>
>> Less mouse movement to reach the "reply" button, I guess.
>>
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>
> Does anybody know where the 'next' message button has gone to?
>

On your keyboard.  ;-)

"F" for next message.
"N" for next unread
"B" for previous message.
"P" for previous unread message.

Or in the "Go to" menu.

Or right-click on the tool bar and personalize it to your taste.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 3-9-2010 15:00, Francois Labreque wrote:

>> On 2-9-2010 14:43, Francois Labreque wrote:

>>>> I just updated to Thunderbird 3.1.2
>>>>
>>>> It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the
>>>> functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most
>>>> particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than
>>>> the toolbar, which means the header is bigger now. In other words,
>>>> you've got the thread list at the top, the message at the bottom, and a
>>>> large useless grey header bar wasting space in the middle. Great.
>>>
>>> Less mouse movement to reach the "reply" button, I guess.
>>>
>>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>>
>> Does anybody know where the 'next' message button has gone to?
>>
>
> On your keyboard. ;-)
>
> "F" for next message.
> "N" for next unread
> "B" for previous message.
> "P" for previous unread message.

I knew that, but I generally browse my mail with my right hand on the 
trackball. Using the keyboard means I have to sit up straight again.

>
> Or in the "Go to" menu.

Sure, but a rather round about way with way to many mouse gestures to my 
taste.

> Or right-click on the tool bar and personalize it to your taste.

Ah, I tried to customize the new toolbar above the message but the 
button was not in that list. Apparently next message can only be in the 
general toolbar on top. Makes no sense to me, I still have to mouse a 
long way. Anyway this is what I was used to, so I also added the 
forward, the reply, and the reply to all there, just I have almost 
succeeded in undoing all improvements.
Thanks for the reply, it made me look in the place where it used to be 
but where I didn't expect it any more because I assumed they would be 
consistent.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Then again, how many programs have you seen where you can't even resize 
> a window?

Or worse, people who don't bother to look at how big text is before they lay 
out their window, so cut off half the text if you're not using the same font 
size as the authors.

But yes, this is bascially the problem that for many years there were no 
Windows graphics APIs that took anchors and stretch-factors and such and 
resized things automatically to fit the window. I've never seen this on (for 
example) a Tcl interface, where it's easier to do it right than wrong.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque wrote:
> On your keyboard.  ;-)

Or space bar, which means "scroll down a page, unless I'm at the last 
message, in which case go to the next unread message."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Then again, how many programs have you seen where you can't even 
>> resize a window?
> 
> Or worse, people who don't bother to look at how big text is before they 
> lay out their window, so cut off half the text if you're not using the 
> same font size as the authors.
> 
> But yes, this is bascially the problem that for many years there were no 
> Windows graphics APIs that took anchors and stretch-factors and such and 
> resized things automatically to fit the window. I've never seen this on 
> (for example) a Tcl interface, where it's easier to do it right than wrong.

I've just seen a GTK dialog where half the dialog text doesn't fit 
unless you manually enlarge the window (i.e., it opens too small 
initially). I have no idea how they could get that wrong, but hey...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 9/2/2010 8:52 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/2/2010 7:43 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>
> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.

Reminds me of those people who decide that everyone in their building 
needs to get an e-mail about their little fundraiser.  So they highlight 
every entry in the address book when putting names in the To: block.

If your building is the Pentagon, this isn't such a grand idea.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 2-9-2010 14:52, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/2/2010 7:43 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>
> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.
> Rarely is it ever relevant, not only that, but accidentally hitting it
> can have negative consequences, and can clog the network if there were
> lots of people on the send list. Also, If you habitually smack
> reply-to-all, and reply with "Yes, I agree" or "Sign me up" etc.. .it's
> not relative to me, and it annoys me to the nth degree. :)
>
> It does have its place, though. Sometimes what you want to say is
> relevant to all parties involved. Most of the time its not.

There is another place where I find reply to all useful. I bcc every 
mail from every e-mail address I use to the same e-mail address. When I 
simply reply to that bcc e-mail as a sort of PS because I forgot 
something, that mail will only reach myself. Which is useless because I 
already knew it.

Post a reply to this message

> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.

If you work on projects with teams of people it's invaluable, and pretty 
much the standard button to press to keep everyone informed of the ongoing 
discussion/actions/outcomes.  It's very rare you only want a single person 
to see what you've got to say, it would actually cause a great deal of 
confusion later on.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/2010 7:23 AM, scott wrote:
>> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.
>
> If you work on projects with teams of people it's invaluable, and pretty
> much the standard button to press to keep everyone informed of the
> ongoing discussion/actions/outcomes. It's very rare you only want a
> single person to see what you've got to say, it would actually cause a
> great deal of confusion later on.
>
>
>

But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than confusion 
when you're bitching about someone. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message