Re: [Pan-users] Readability suggestion. Feature request.

[Duncan]

On Tue 03 Jun 2003 02:25, DevilKin posted as excerpted below:
> On Tuesday 03 June 2003 11:02, Maurizio Colucci wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > Please take a time and compare the readability of current pan with
> > Agent.  Suppose I want to find the reply of John to my message:
> >
> > Pan:
> >
> >
> > Hello! How are you! This is the title.                   me
> >    Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.            jack
> >       Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.         frank
> >    Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.            frank
> >       Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.         john
> >       Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.         me
> >          Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.      jack
> >             Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.   jack
> >             Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.   jack
> >          Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.      frank   <<<
> > that's it Re: Hello! How are you! This is the title.            john
> >
> >
> >
> > Agent:
> >
> > Hello! How are you! This is the title.                   me
> >    jack
> >       frank
> >    frank
> >       john
> >       me
> >          jack
> >             jack
> >             jack
> >          frank   <<< that's it
> >    john
> >
> >
> > Of course Agent is better.
> >
> > The problem in Pan is that the topic rarely changes, nevertheless it
> > is given a big importance (by means of indentation), whereas the
> > author is more important, but it is given minor importance by means of
> > no indentation.
> >
> > Second, redundant info is annoying. The topic of replies is totally
> > irrelevant, and can be seen inside the message when it (rarely)
> > changes.
>
> Hmm. I happen to agree on this one - the way Agent does it has it
> advantages. We could ofcourse make a mix: take the way agent does it, and
> only if the topic changes show the topic again?

I like it as is.  To do it otherwise would be needlessly confusing and coding 
to no good reason, when there are all sorts of other stuff one could code, 
IMO.

Subjects should be subjects, not authors.  Putting it in the author column 
loses info because it's much narrower and can't indicate as many levels of 
indention.  It can't be made wider because of screen space considerations.

Besides, what's saying author is the important thing?  Some folks might prefer 
line-count/size as the important thing, particularly in binary groups.  
Others may want MsgID displayed there to facilitate fetching off of other 
servers, Others may want to accent the date.  Authors is an arbitrary choice, 
and I see no reason for it.

OTOH..  you just stimulated a new idea here, possibly equally impractical, 
but..  Why not use color indention as in the body?  Of course, then we have 
to figure out how to convey the info we are now conveying with color...

Back to your idea.  While I don't really support it, I could live with it.  
Thus, the objection isn't real strong, except that it means other stuff that 
must eventually get coded (like posting attachments and the incorporation of 
SQLite so virtual servers and virtual groups can eventually become a reality, 
gets pushed back just that bit further, to no pressing end, IMO.  I'd 
probably have less objection to it if all the big stuff was already done and 
we were in maintenance mode for the most part, but for now, I think this 
should be targeted at "bluesky" if even considered.  OTOH, if you like the 
idea and can code it up...  perhaps it's worth trying even if I don't like 
it.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin