 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than confusion
> when you're bitching about someone. ;-)
True, but I wouldn't recommend bitching about people on corporate email
anyway, you don't know who is reading it (regardless of who you addressed
the email to).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-9-2010 16:17, scott wrote:
>> But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than
>> confusion when you're bitching about someone. ;-)
>
> True, but I wouldn't recommend bitching about people on corporate email
> anyway, you don't know who is reading it (regardless of who you
> addressed the email to).
>
>
I'd say on any e-mail not just corporate. Though if I say that some
people might try to find proof that I did it in this newsgroup.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/09/2010 7:52 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 6-9-2010 16:17, scott wrote:
>>> But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than
>>> confusion when you're bitching about someone. ;-)
>>
>> True, but I wouldn't recommend bitching about people on corporate email
>> anyway, you don't know who is reading it (regardless of who you
>> addressed the email to).
>>
>>
> I'd say on any e-mail not just corporate. Though if I say that some
> people might try to find proof that I did it in this newsgroup.
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/6/2010 1:23 AM, scott wrote:
> 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.
Like I said... it definitely has its place. Its irritating when people
abuse the feature though. Like when they send a reply that was directed
only at the sender...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
