[ Peter Davis Wrote On Fri 23.Nov'12 at 14:27:23 GMT ] > This will be my last comment on the subject, since straying off > topic is, I think, a worse transgression than top posting or using > long lines. I apologize for prolonging this. I'll try to be as > explicit as I can, to clarify my views on this. > > The prevalent thinking in the software organizations I've been a > part of is that products, including software, should be designed for > the way users think and behave, instead of the other way around. > There has been a surge of research on cognitive psychology, > "engineering psychology", human factors and related fields. The goal > is not mind-reading, but close. It is understanding how human > cognition works, and how we can design tools that users will be able > to control effectively. It addresses such questions as "How can we > direct users' attention to the most important information in a busy > display?" or "How can we limit the cognitive load a task places on > the user, so as not to impair his/her performance?" It's not > possible to predict every possible mistake, but it is possible to > determine what conditions lead to mistakes. > > Simply put, the approach is to treat the users' mental and physical > capabilities as a set of design constraints that must be imposed on > any product. This field has a long way to go, but has already > accomplished much. Makers of cell phones, tablets, cars, aircraft, > air traffic control systems, medical devices, etc. all pay very > close attention to this field. > > But the fact that you refer to "end user's laziness and/or > stupidity" suggests that you have no acquaintance with this approach > to design. > > To bring this back to the topic, mutt is one of several MTAs I have > used. I currently have three separate mail archives (not including > backups) and use mutt, MH, Thunderbird, GMail and other WebMail > interfaces, and occasional others. Each of the clients has certain > advantages and certain drawbacks. I like the fact that I can quickly > go through a large volume of mail with mutt, using just single > keystrokes for the most part, and the fact that I can easily pipe > messages to perl scripts I've written for various routine tasks. > > However, I also recognize that mutt is, to a large extent, obsolete. > Of course it still appeals to those who cling to the text/plain, > 72-characters-per-line limit model from the 1970's, but that > audience is a smaller and smaller percentage of the email-using > population. I don't have any data, but given the prevalence of > email, I suspect that mutt users make up a minuscule portion of > that. > > Nothing wrong with that. Mutt is a great tool for what it does. But > to condemn the vast majority of email users, those who don't follow > the line length or bottom-posting conventions we've discussed, for > failing to comply with 40 year old strictures advocated by an > extremely small segment seems to me counter-productive. > > -pd
I couldn't agree more. Well put Peter.
