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

[Maurizio Colucci]

On Tuesday 03 June 2003 12:28, Duncan wrote:
> 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.

So I was right to be skeptical...

> Subjects should be subjects, not authors.

...as long as it's useful that it be so.

Rules are made by men in order to ease their own lives. Not posed by
god and immutable.

>  Putting it in the author column
> loses info because it's much narrower and can't indicate as many levels of
> indention.

I never suggested to put subjects in the author column. I suggested
dropping it. Alternatively, it could be displayed when it changes:


My subject bla bla ba                             myself
    john
       frank

    jack
       myself
           You are so stupid (was: ...)           jack
              frank
           jack


and so on.

>  It can't be made wider because of screen space considerations.
>
> Besides, what's saying author is the important thing?  

"important thing" makes no real sense, and I didn't say so.

On the other hand, "the author is more important that the subject"
does make sense, because the author often changes and the subject
almost never does (and even when it does, this change is irrelevant
and is reflected in the body).


>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.


SO, how do you solve the problem of locating at a glance frank's reply
to my post in a long thread?


> 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...

THere are too many levels of indentation, and the color required would
be too similar to each other. Frank's reply to message M will have a
color too similar to the color of M.

bye,

Maurizio