RE: Replying to list
On Thursday, June 22, 2006 2:02 PM -0500, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Lynn Kilroy wrote:
> > I use MSN Hotmail. Seems MSN Hotmail doesn't work quite the same
> > way your cludgy e-mail clients {oft mentioned in your article} do.
>
> Cludgy? Actually these are quite on the forefront.
I'd say it's quite a stretch to say that Elm is at the forefront of MUA
technology. That was the MUA I used for years under Unix a looong time
ago. It was a PITA then, and it still is today. I know, expressing
dislike for Elm is probably a sin, though I'm not sure if it's venial or
mortal :)
Let me admit to a second mortal sin, which is possibly an act of heresy.
Even though I was raised on the command line, because it was all that
existed at the time, I now prefer GUI's. That's right, even though I
can do everything a GUI does from the command line, and then some, and
do it faster if I were to use a given program eight hours a day, I still
prefer GUI's.
Why would I possibly make that choice? You might say because I'm a
fool, but that's taking the easy way out, and besides, you'd be wrong.
It's because I use so many different application environments in my work
(I'm an embedded hardware engineer), and I have to deal with both 'nix
and 'doze applications, that I can no longer stay current on all the
command line switches and configuration file tricks for all of my tools
and both OS's. I don't have the luxury of even limiting myself to one
OS, yet I still need complete control over all of my tools. Since
committing perhaps thousands of command line options and hundreds of
config file formats to memory is no longer practical, and they all
change regularly with version updates, I have come to appreciate the
usefulness of the GUI for people in my position.
I typically use a group of tools intensively for a few weeks, then don't
use them again for several months. In between, I use another set of
tools intensively as my project work demands. It's not that I have a
poor memory, or that I'm lazy. I don't think anyone could remember all
the command line tricks for this many applications when their usage
pattern is sporadic. Unless you're in a narrow specialty, or do the
same type of job over and over again, you may find yourself in a similar
position.
Another thing I've come to appreciate is that all these tools are just
that: tools used to accomplish an end, which is what my customers
ultimately pay for. I used to take some satisfaction in knowing loads
of command line tricks for the tools I used, and could do impressively
fast manipulations for my boss or customers. As the number of tools I
needed increased with my experience, it became apparent that unless I
was willing to make knowing these intricacies my whole life, I needed
another approach. That turned out to be the much-maligned GUI. While
it also happens to be the interface of choice for people with no
computer literacy and no desire for every achieving any, that doesn't
mean it is inferior for all users. I argue that it is the most
appropriate interface that we currently have for people who use a very
large suite of disparate tools sporadically.
That's very different from the needs of computer-illiterate consumers.
But let me put that in a different perspective. They also think of a
computer as a tool, and are only interested in the results they can get
with the tool given the effort required to achieve them. If the effort
is too great for a job they only do occasionally, they will make the
sensible decision to do it some other way. From this viewpoint, you can
look at the computer noob's love of GUI's and fear of the command line
not so much as a sign of mental laziness or stupidity, but a possibly
reasonable assessment that the payback for learning a large amount of
detail will not yield a real gain in productivity. In some cases, it
would.
Unfortunately, the attitude of a fair number of technical professionals
seems to be that that unless end users are willing to make a personal
commitment to master a large base of knowledge, they are mentally
inferior. This creates an environment where end users are not even
going to try, and everybody loses. The end users lose, as they don't
learn what computers could do for them, and we lose, as ambassadors for
an operating system that puts security and performance first.
So getting back to the topic of this thread, insisting that "all
competent mailers" have a 'Reply to List' function, when none of the
most common mailers for people trapped in the most widely used operating
system have the required feature, is not really helpful to them. We
seem to be saying, in effect, "if you aren't smart enough to already use
Linux and have a competent MUA, get off this list". That is hardly
welcoming to those who are curious.
The fact remains that most people who read their mail on Windows
workstations, as I do, _don't_ have a 'Reply to List' button. There are
a lot more of them than 'nix systems. If you'd like to see that change,
as I would, perhaps we could be a little more accommodating and take the
operation of their MUA's into account when deciding how this list
operates. We are just doing M$'s bidding when we make this mailing list
cumbersome for Windows MUA's. This may be a club, but let's not make it
an exclusive one.
--
Seth Goodman
Reply to: