Topics

moderated Suggested Feature - Provide email "call" for a message by specifying the message number


 

One more comment on the notion that's frequently propagated here to the effect that "there's already a way to do this, we don't need another one." I think if you call the alternate way a "short cut," in general it might get more respect. Nobody has anything against shortcuts to be used under certain situations and conditions where there's something simple and immediate the user wants. So why on earth not provide the shortcut if it's simple? Nobody has to use it or even be aware of it if they don't want to. There are tons of shortcuts available in all the software I use and I'm generally oblivious to them. But why should I fight against them?

That's besides the fact that there's at least one other use-case I mentioned for this feature, besides the one for which it was originally suggested, where someone may simply want a hard copy of a particular message in their inbox (for other reasons besides not being able or wanting to log on). They may want to forward it or whatever. And there may others.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
One more comment on the notion that's frequently propagated here to the effect that "there's already a way to do this, we don't need another one." I think if you call the alternate way a "short cut," in general it might get more respect.
Honestly, and I'm not arguing with regard to this request, but in general - this is often what becomes "feature bloat."   There are minuses, sometimes severe, to having to maintain N ways of doing things when, say, 2 are routinely used by the majority of users.  The possibility of the introduction of bugs, possible points of failure really shouldn't be ignored.

If an existing way is very easy, there's even less need for another one.

I'm not saying that any and every feature request be denied, either.  But given the water that's passed under the beta bridge, there have been plenty that deserve to have floated downstream without ever having been plucked out.  Discretion is required, particularly with regard to what falls more into the "need" rather than "want" categories.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)


 

Discretion is always required and  I am as familiar (if not more) with feature bloat as anyone here. But unless any given feature seriously detracts from general user experience (and I’ll grant that a few non-optional features that have been requested here in the past fall into that category), then what constitutes feature bloat in terms of implementation maintenance is entirely up to Mark to determine. It does not make sense IMHO for people in beta to fight tooth and nail against a feature that neither they nor their group members never even have to be consciously aware of.


On Mar 25, 2019, at 9:46 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
One more comment on the notion that's frequently propagated here to the effect that "there's already a way to do this, we don't need another one." I think if you call the alternate way a "short cut," in general it might get more respect.
Honestly, and I'm not arguing with regard to this request, but in general - this is often what becomes "feature bloat."   There are minuses, sometimes severe, to having to maintain N ways of doing things when, say, 2 are routinely used by the majority of users.  The possibility of the introduction of bugs, possible points of failure really shouldn't be ignored.

If an existing way is very easy, there's even less need for another one.

I'm not saying that any and every feature request be denied, either.  But given the water that's passed under the beta bridge, there have been plenty that deserve to have floated downstream without ever having been plucked out.  Discretion is required, particularly with regard to what falls more into the "need" rather than "want" categories.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

Typo, should read implementation and maintenance 


On Mar 25, 2019, at 10:14 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Discretion is always required and  I am as familiar (if not more) with feature bloat as anyone here. But unless any given feature seriously detracts from general user experience (and I’ll grant that a few non-optional features that have been requested here in the past fall into that category), then what constitutes feature bloat in terms of implementation maintenance is entirely up to Mark to determine. It does not make sense IMHO for people in beta to fight tooth and nail against a feature that neither they nor their group members never even have to be consciously aware of.


On Mar 25, 2019, at 9:46 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
One more comment on the notion that's frequently propagated here to the effect that "there's already a way to do this, we don't need another one." I think if you call the alternate way a "short cut," in general it might get more respect.
Honestly, and I'm not arguing with regard to this request, but in general - this is often what becomes "feature bloat."   There are minuses, sometimes severe, to having to maintain N ways of doing things when, say, 2 are routinely used by the majority of users.  The possibility of the introduction of bugs, possible points of failure really shouldn't be ignored.

If an existing way is very easy, there's even less need for another one.

I'm not saying that any and every feature request be denied, either.  But given the water that's passed under the beta bridge, there have been plenty that deserve to have floated downstream without ever having been plucked out.  Discretion is required, particularly with regard to what falls more into the "need" rather than "want" categories.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:14 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It does not make sense IMHO for people in beta to fight tooth and nail against a feature that neither they nor their group members never even have to be consciously aware of.
Nor I, and we've had this discussion.

For myself, being "a contrarian" is a role I don't mind taking.  Providing counterpoint isn't, in my opinion, arguing "tooth and nail" against anything.  Nor is repeating that educating one's own users about the mechanisms already available, sometimes not only on Groups.io but elsewhere as well, should be the first order of business rather than requesting "the next feature," that simply does the same thing in another way.

You are absolutely correct that, in the end, it is up to one person only:  Mark.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)


 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:25 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
For myself, being "a contrarian" is a role I don't mind taking.
Gosh, I had no idea! ;)

You are absolutely correct that, in the end, it is up to one person only:  Mark.
It's always up to Mark. But with these kinds of features, I would argue that we are wasting his time by even debating the matter here. Because we have no stake in it. We have no "standing." Existence or nonexistence of features like these doesn't affect us one way or the other.

I don't mind being a contrarian either. :)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:37 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Existence or nonexistence of features like these doesn't affect us one way or the other.
(continuation)...doesn't affect us in terms of implementation and maintenance and work for Mark. Of course the people who actively want the feature have a stake in the debate. But people who don't want it have no reason to object since it doesn't affect them.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:37 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Because we have no stake in it. We have no "standing." Existence or nonexistence of features like these doesn't affect us one way or the other.
I disagree, but I'm also done.   Anyone using a system as it exists has standing when changes are being discussed, whether or not said changes are something they, personally, would use or not.

I don't see feature requests as something that cannot be questioned/challenged, and for reasons both practical and philosophical, on principle.  On more than one occasion when, "But you can already do this . . .{insert way here}," has been brought up the reply has been, "Oh, I didn't know that."  That's why these sorts of discussions have value, at least to me.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)