Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:08 am, J_catlady wrote:
They often think they're sending their message to the originator of the thread rather than to the person whose message they happened to click "reply" on.
J, not aimed at you: Then they're just unteachable.
I cannot imagine how you would ever think that clicking on "send to sender" would work its way back through a chain of messages rather than take the sender from the message you originated a reply from.
I still don't like the "Send to Sender" button as an option that appears after the generic Reply button is hit. But one has to be obtuse to believe any "Send to Sender" function doesn't do what it says, send to an individual message's sender, not to the thread originator.
Also, I really don't have any issue, at all, with the choice of recipient being wrapped up in the Reply step itself. If, upon hitting a reply link or button you are forced to actively choose your recipient that's still more than enough to satisfy the "before you start composing" cognitive requirement. After all, we do know that what's about to be composed is a reply, but the recipient should be selected prior to the composition starting. If that's done it also eliminates the need for anything but a "Send" button.
In the final analysis, though, it is far better to stick with the well-worn convention that a "Reply" button in a web forum interface meaning "make my reply to the group" and a separate mechanism entirely for any form of "off group" messaging, no matter who that message is intended for. It is an ingrained expectation that works incredibly well. There is no need to change it, only want.
A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo. ~ Bill Gray