12021/06/39 09:94.47 ನಲ್ಲಿ, John Hawkinson <jh...@alum.mit.edu> ಬರೆದರು: > ಚಿರಾಗ್ ನಟರಾಜ್ <mailingl...@chiraag.me> wrote on Thu, 7 Oct 2021 > at 23:32:00 EDT in <YV+7qtpNJ7eN74XZ@chiraag>: > > > Any email client (including mobile email clients) worth its salt is > > going to wrap the subject line (at least in the email view, if not > > in the index view), so that shouldn't really be an issue, right? > > My principal concern is with the index view. And none of the 4 email clients > I use wrap the index view (mutt, Gmail web, Gmail mobile, Outlook web), nor > would I want them to (because then they'd be taking too much vertical real > estate, too).
That's fair, I guess. Though I'm wondering how many forwarded emails you get
that you're more worried about these subject lines than the reply ones...or are
those in your crosshairs too? :)
>
> > That's true. However, convention is *also* important,
>
> Unsupported argument.
Convention (in an abstract sense) helps shared understanding and facilitates
communication.
>
> > and Mutt's convention is...unconventional.
>
> Not particularly.
> It's not Outlook's and it's not Gmail's, so it's not the market leader, but
> its difference is not particularly confusing or difficult to understand.
To quote you: Unsupported argument.
>
> > Most email systems usually use FW: at the beginning to indicate that
> > the email has been forwarded (if I'm not mistaken).
>
> No, if we're going to be pedantic.
> And "not quite" if we are going to be flexible on case sensitivity.
>
> Outlook uses "Fw: ", and Gmail uses "Fwd: ".
> Between them I think they dominate the market ("most email systems").
Ah, okay. Apparently ProtonMail uses "Fw: " as well, so I guess they're
sticking to Outlook's convention? Either way, both make it explicitly clear
(using a well-understood abbreviation) that the email is a forward.
>
> > Why shouldn't Mutt do the same?
>
> We should do the best we can, and if there is a situation where there is
> strong value in conformance, we should consider the costs and benefits to
> conforming. Here, I haven't seen any meaningful argument beyond the idea that
> the current behavor might be confusing. But I've never heard of anyone being
> confused by it, and my experience is that nobody is confused. You haven't
> even suggested that you have found a single person to be confused (and I
> think we'd need a lot more than one example).
>
> Indeed, even were there confusion, it would be fleeting, because it's obvious
> what's going on upon viewing the context of the message, regardless of
> whether the "Forwarded message" text is present (as it is when mime_forward
> is unset).
>
> If some people were confused, then we'd have to evaluate the seriousness of
> that confusion against the costs of change. Line length is one cost I
> articulaed. Another is that absolutely any change has a cost, and causes
> people to have to figure out how to get used to it. That's mostly a one-time
> cost and sometimes it's easy to argue it's worth it for the greater good, but
> that's a tough argument to make here.
>
> But of course you're free to set your own configuration. Or we could include
> a sample commented line in the muttrc labelled "# Make forwarding look like
> Outlook's" or whatever. But I think a much more compelling case is required
> to change the default.
>
> Of course, others may disagree.
I think this gets to the crux of the disagreement. Your assumption is "No one
is practically going to be confused," so it doesn't matter even if it doesn't
stick to convention. And we'd have to weigh the length cost against the benefit
of sticking with what "most people" know already (thereby lessening cognitive
load and facilitating communication).
To be perfectly honest, I genuinely don't care either way. I don't forward
emails enough that it really matters at all, so it's entirely a theoretical
question from my standpoint. I just found it interesting that sticking with an
"emergent" convention (if you will) doesn't seem to be an intrinsic good,
especially when there is very little downside to doing so.
- Chiraag
--
ಚಿರಾಗ್ ನಟರಾಜ್
Pronouns: he/him/his
publickey - mailinglist@chiraag.me - b0c8d720.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
