Outlook

6 May 2004 - 8:52am
10 years ago
16 replies
870 reads
Michael Bartlett
2004

To fork the conversation...

Three questions, Elizabeth (Elizabeth is our primary persona!):

1. Why not Outlook?
2. What do you use instead?
3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?

Just curious really.

MB

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Buie
Sent: 06 May 2004 14:39
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] web design

Andrei asks:

"Who would prefer to use the browser based version of Microsoft Outlook over
the desktop client ***as their primary*** interface to using email on a
daily basis?"

Can I vote "neither"?

I agree about the preferability of desktop clients over browser-based
interfaces.

I would not, however, choose Outlook as my desktop client. :-)

Elizabeth

--
Elizabeth Buie
Computer Sciences Corporation
Rockville, Maryland
301.921.3326

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind
CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

Comments

6 May 2004 - 9:41am
Todd Warfel
2003

On May 6, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Michael Bartlett wrote:

> 1. Why not Outlook?

The all in one is a bit too complicated. It's powerful, but not simple.
The interface gets in the way. The junk mail filter isn't that great.
Standard MS security issues...

> 2. What do you use instead?

Mail, iCal, iChat, and Address Book. Yes, that's three independent
applications; however, they are all integrated. So, iCal, iChat, and
Mail integrate with Address Book for contacts.
* iCal is compatible w/Outlook appointments (e.g. add, invite, accept
invitations). It allows multiple individual calendars. You can publish
those calendars and subscribe to published calendars, which is nice for
seeing other calendars like Exchange offers. Exchange does have the
advantage of having live updates, where iCal would require scripting to
do that. So, it might not be the best solution for the enterprise.

* Mail has a wonderful junk mail filter that actually works. Although
the smarter these spammers get, the harder it has to work. Mail's junk
mail filter "learns" as it goes. It's simple to use, but very powerful.
It's all I need in a Mail client. It does still lack a few features
that I miss from Entourage (e.g. rewrap text, signature to email
account relations). It's easy to embed images, PDFs, etc. into an email
- just drag them where you want them to go.

> 3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?

Yeah, but still don't like the over complication. I spent about six
months running Entourage (Erage) on my workstation and Apple's iApps on
my notebook. Finally made the switch over and haven't looked back
sense. It's not for everyone, but it suites my needs quite well.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2384 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/0780ae83/attachment.bin

6 May 2004 - 10:00am
Dave Collins
2004

1. Why not Outlook?

While I risk of opening the 'Quirks I hate about Outlook' can of worms,
I claim first (or at least second) dibs.

Just one really:

<rant>

My folders sort alphabetically - which includes the fixed, extremely
commonly-used folders such as Inbox, Sent, Deleted, etc. which cannot be
renamed. Every time I want to find my Inbox, I have to sort through the
stupidheaded list manually - looking for 'Inbox' between 'Fora' and
'Personal'. Arg.

You know how I got around this? Every folder I create on my own - every
single one - is prefixed with a special character to force it to fall
alphabetically *after* the group of fixed folders which start with a
normal alpha character. It has to be a very special character, since
most "normally special" characters (such as *, -, _ or <space>) will
fall *before* the regular alphabet, thus forcing all normal-named
folders to the bottom - and out of site.

So I use lower case Latin letter 'thorn' (Alt+0254 - looks like the love
child of 'b' and 'p'. I chose it because it looks more like a bullet
than a letter.) Now all my Fixed, common folders are right at the top
where I can instantly find them, and all my own folders are neatly
arranged alphabetically below them.

</rant>

BTW, if anyone knows a better solution, I'd love to hear it (but it
should probably be off-list, as should this entire discussion really...)

Phew. Thank you.

Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/a2f574d1/attachment.html

6 May 2004 - 10:16am
Joe Leech
2004

> :
>
> 1. Why not Outlook?
>
>
I agree with Todd, outlook is bloat-ware of the worst kind. too many
features in one program leads to a confused crowded interface. plus the
security issues. I also have problems with it's performance
particularly with filtering messages when I start it first thing in the
morning- it takes ages to sort my messages properly. I also don't like
the way it sorts message threads and gets easily confused with threads
on email lists.

> 2. What do you use instead?
>
>

I use Thunderbird, much cleaner interface, less crowded and you can
install the features you want like calender etc and are not lumped with
them as standard. The way it threads messages is also very intuitive -
graphically showing the associations. Also I find it works much better
with multiple email accounts and I don;t have to do that annoying switch
user thingummy. And I don't have to have administrator privalages to
install it.

> 3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?
>
>

Yes, it certainly looks prettier. but is still far too bloated and as
the most popular email client will always be an easy target for viruses.

Try Thunderbird for a while, it's really lovely.

>
> Andrei asks:
>
> "Who would prefer to use the browser based version of Microsoft
> Outlook over
> the desktop client ***as their primary*** interface to using email on a
> daily basis?"
>
> Can I vote "neither"?
>
> I agree about the preferability of desktop clients over browser-based
> interfaces.
>
> I would not, however, choose Outlook as my desktop client. :-)
>
> Elizabeth
>
> --
> Elizabeth Buie
> Computer Sciences Corporation
> Rockville, Maryland
> 301.921.3326
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------
> This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
> delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate
> to bind
> CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
> agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
> for such purpose.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
>
>

Michael Bartlett wrote:

>To fork the conversation...
>
>Three questions, Elizabeth (Elizabeth is our primary persona!):
>
>1. Why not Outlook?
>2. What do you use instead?
>3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?
>
>Just curious really.
>
>MB
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
>[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
>com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Buie
>Sent: 06 May 2004 14:39
>To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] web design
>
>Andrei asks:
>
>"Who would prefer to use the browser based version of Microsoft Outlook over
>the desktop client ***as their primary*** interface to using email on a
>daily basis?"
>
>Can I vote "neither"?
>
>I agree about the preferability of desktop clients over browser-based
>interfaces.
>
>I would not, however, choose Outlook as my desktop client. :-)
>
>Elizabeth
>
>--
>Elizabeth Buie
>Computer Sciences Corporation
>Rockville, Maryland
>301.921.3326
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------
>This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
>delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind
>CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
>agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
>for such purpose.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
>http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
>http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
>http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
>
>

6 May 2004 - 10:30am
Dave Malouf
2005

Ah! the problem here we are encountering is scope.
Not using POP or IMAP? Then what? Can iwhatever work w/ Exchange? Notes?

Also, the ability to process requests for tasks and meetings in a single
environment for me is really important.

People talk about complexity but I have been in situations where calendaring
and mail and contacts were split up and I hate it. They are really one
business process of PIM (thus the phrase) and when working in a groupware
environment it is so important.

1. Outlook2003 has amazing junk e-mail filtering and the most powerful
filtering (rules or policies) I have seen anywhere.

2. Entourage is NOT Outlook 2003. Sorry they didn't do the same thing there,
but they didn't.

3. Outlook's interrop w/ Office 2003 is also amazing ... enter in Sharepoint
world and the intergration there and pop Wow! turn off the world it has
stopped. ;)

4. Yes, the security issues suck ...

I have tried to use thunderbird for my pop/imap stuff and found that w/o
integrating it w/ my other apps/calendar and contacts management it just is
useless.

So, in the end it depends. I think the issues that people bring up are
great, but they are not taking into account context of different
environments and different work styles. One of the great things in this
world is choice. We all have a choice and I say to each their own. ...

To the real point. The reason that Andrei used Outlook as an example was to
really say this, "If you had [email client of choice] on the desktop and on
the web, which one would you choose?" The only two apps that I know that
have this are Outllook/Exchange and Lotus Notes. Since these are the only
two Groupware apps that have a web server of their own.

Shoot, I don't even use Hotmail ... I use my Outlook. ;) I know others do
the same for Yahoo too (if they pay for it).

Lastly, Outlook is a single source for syncing to my palm. :) I love this
b/c I can use the same categories across all my applications: calendar,
e-mail, contacts, and notes (not the Lotus kind).

Not using groupware? I think this e-mail client issue is not a big deal
then.

-- dave

_____

From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Todd R.Warfel
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 10:42 AM
To: Michael Bartlett
Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Outlook

On May 6, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Michael Bartlett wrote:

1. Why not Outlook?

The all in one is a bit too complicated. It's powerful, but not simple. The
interface gets in the way. The junk mail filter isn't that great. Standard
MS security issues...

2. What do you use instead?

Mail, iCal, iChat, and Address Book. Yes, that's three independent
applications; however, they are all integrated. So, iCal, iChat, and Mail
integrate with Address Book for contacts.
* iCal is compatible w/Outlook appointments (e.g. add, invite, accept
invitations). It allows multiple individual calendars. You can publish those
calendars and subscribe to published calendars, which is nice for seeing
other calendars like Exchange offers. Exchange does have the advantage of
having live updates, where iCal would require scripting to do that. So, it
might not be the best solution for the enterprise.

* Mail has a wonderful junk mail filter that actually works. Although the
smarter these spammers get, the harder it has to work. Mail's junk mail
filter "learns" as it goes. It's simple to use, but very powerful. It's all
I need in a Mail client. It does still lack a few features that I miss from
Entourage (e.g. rewrap text, signature to email account relations). It's
easy to embed images, PDFs, etc. into an email - just drag them where you
want them to go.

3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?

Yeah, but still don't like the over complication. I spent about six months
running Entourage (Erage) on my workstation and Apple's iApps on my
notebook. Finally made the switch over and haven't looked back sense. It's
not for everyone, but it suites my needs quite well.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/e8151d46/attachment.html

6 May 2004 - 10:46am
Chris Ryan
2004

On May 6, 2004, at 6:52 AM, Michael Bartlett wrote:

> To fork the conversation...
>
> Three questions, Elizabeth (Elizabeth is our primary persona!):
>
> 1. Why not Outlook?

In a word: security. The vast majority of the headaches on Windows are=20=

directly related.

"One of the things that always mystifies me is how anybody in corporate=20=

America will run Outlook. I mean to say that, 'they don't have a=20
security story,' is being very charitable. I mean, it's a petri dish.=20
Opening a piece of e-mail in Outlook is really asking for it." -- James=20=

Gosling

"Microsoft=92s Outlook has been exploited by virus authors so frequently=20=

and so effectively that I dare anyone to dispute that it=92s the worst=20=

email client ever, anywhere." -- John Gruber

> 2. What do you use instead?

I'm on Mac OS X. I use Mail and iCal, and I'm checking out Groupcal for=20=

tighter Exchange synchronization (Mail has no problem using Exchange=20
servers for sending/retrieving mail).

http://www.snerdware.com/groupcal/

> 3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?

No need.

Chris

6 May 2004 - 11:04am
Todd Warfel
2003

On May 6, 2004, at 11:30 AM, David Heller wrote:

> Ah! the problem here we are encountering is scope.
> Not using POP or IMAP? Then what? Can iwhatever work w/ Exchange?
> Notes?

Exchange - yes. Notes - I'm not sure, as I haven't tried it.

> Also, the ability to process requests for tasks and meetings in a
> single environment for me is really important.

Why? (not trying to be facetious, I'm honestly interested in what it is
about it that you prefer).

> People talk about complexity but I have been in situations where
> calendaring and mail and contacts were split up and I hate it[...]

What was it you hated about them?

I thought it would bother me that the apps are split up, but it
actually doesn't. Doesn't mean it's for everyone though.

> 1. Outlook2003 has amazing junk e-mail filtering and the most powerful
> filtering (rules or policies) I have seen anywhere.

You probably haven't looked at Mail's junk filter then. Both have
powerful rules and policies, but the biggest difference is that Mail
uses a combination of rules, policies, and algorithms which learn as
you go - something Outlook doesn't do ( to my knowledge).

> 2. Entourage is NOT Outlook 2003. Sorry they didn't do the same thing
> there, but they didn't.

I understand that. I've actually used both Entourage and Outlook 2003.

> 3. Outlook's interrop w/ Office 2003 is also amazing ... enter in
> Sharepoint world and the intergration there and pop Wow! turn off the
> world it has stopped. ;)

The integration is nice. Sharepoint has some great "features" but it's
a bit too complex IMHO. And to that point, why not just make Sharepoint
part of Outlook?

> 4. Yes, the security issues suck ...

Agreed.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3336 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/b710e3b1/attachment.bin

6 May 2004 - 11:09am
Chris Ryan
2004

On May 6, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Todd R.Warfel wrote:

>> Also, the ability to process requests for tasks and meetings in a
>> single environment for me is really important.
>
> Why? (not trying to be facetious, I'm honestly interested in what it
> is about it that you prefer).
>
>> People talk about complexity but I have been in situations where
>> calendaring and mail and contacts were split up and I hate it[...]
>
> What was it you hated about them?
>
> I thought it would bother me that the apps are split up, but it
> actually doesn't. Doesn't mean it's for everyone though.

I think that a lot of the usability issues seen in apps like Word and
Outlook are directly related to the "Swiss Army Knife" aspects of the
software. My favourite apps do one thing and do it very well. Perhaps
part of the issue here is integration provided by the operating system:
seems that drag and drop works better on the Mac, and Windows doesn't
have things like AppleScript.

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1193 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/70dd19e9/attachment.bin

6 May 2004 - 11:18am
NICK MEARA
2004

> 1. Why not Outlook?

I do use Outlook as it's what's on offer here. There are some good points
like message preview, but on the whole I find it quite annoying.

The way mail is organised into incoming, outgoing, draft and deleted is a
particular peeve. Just give me one big mailbox with decent threading and
indicate the difference between the different message types. To me e-mail is
a written conversation and I need to see the whole conversation in context,
not an artificial divide between messages. As it is, I seem to spend a lot
of time switching between folders and searching trying to stitch my
conversations back together.

Awful quoting. Outlook's workaround for the incoming/outgoing split appears
to be to quote the entire message. If left unchecked this can run into
screens and screens of other people's messages. (I understand that there is
sport to be had from peeking into what other people have said, especially in
multiple Forwards, but one would never indulge in anything so base [grin].)

Outlook Web Access. I'm a relatively new Outlook user, but I'm told that the
only way I can access my e-mail from home is through OWA. Why can't I use
the same software I have on my work PC to connect to Exchange remotely? It's
all packets going over the wire isn't it?

> 2. What do you use instead?

I used FirstClass in a previous job. If I could I'd switch back to it. In
some ways it wasn't as slick as Outlook, but it was much better for
collaboration.

* All messages go to your Mailbox
(there is junk mail filtering so it's not as scary as it sounds)
* Use the same client for work/home/wherever
(web version available too for firewall issues)
* E-mail, discussion, chat, calendar, fax, voice mail, and PDA sync.

Disclosure: I don't work for FirstClass/Open Text, it's just that using
Outlook makes me realise how good it was.

> 3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?

Not yet. I hear that it's better than 2002, but much of what frustrates me
seems to be core to the way Outlook is designed.

Cheers,

Nick.
........................................................
Nick Meara E-learning Experience Co-ordinator
ICT-IDSG, Aston University, Birmingham

'A mind is a fire to be kindled,
not a vessel to be filled.'
-- Plutarch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/11b3778f/attachment.html

6 May 2004 - 11:36am
Michael Bartlett
2004

I think that a lot of the usability issues seen in apps like Word and
Outlook are directly related to the "Swiss Army Knife" aspects of the
software. My favourite apps do one thing and do it very well. Perhaps part
of the issue here is integration provided by the operating system: seems
that drag and drop works better on the Mac, and Windows doesn't have things
like AppleScript.

VBScript is very much like AppleScript, surely? That's actually the source
for most of the cited Outlook security issues.

Funny you should mention the Swiss Army thing. The software we write sits
inside Microsoft Word and sews together various applications (PDF creation,
Meta-data stripping, Document Comparison, Outlook/Notes/Groupwise and your
Document Management System). The STENGTH of this application is two fold: a)
Swiss Army approach b) Process orientated approach. To extend (b)... say you
wanted to open a bottle of wine (I'm a big wine drinker) with a Swiss Army
knife. You take out the small knife and open the foil, you then put back
that knife and bring out the little cork screw to take out the cork. Now if
the Swiss Army knife was our product, you would take out the "Wine Opening
Thingy" hold it to the top of the bottle and it would remove the foil and
take the cork off for you.

I must agree with David here on the all-in-one approach, the fact that
Tasks, Calendar and Mail is all together makes my life a lot more
manageable. For example, Outlook Today consolidates all meetings I have for
the day, all tasks that are due for completion today, all emails flagged for
follow up with a due by date of today. Personally I don't think they've
actually gone far enough with integrating them together. For instance: I'm a
manager of sorts - so generally when I write internal emails, they are
action-orientated. So what I would like to do is author an email and, say in
some sort of Task pane or from a drop-down menu, create a number of tasks
that are automagically associated with that email. They will appear on my
task list and they will be assigned to recipients of that email and will
appear on their task lists as well (we are talking Groupware here). Today,
to do this I have to create a number of tasks, create an email and then drag
those tasks into the email - why?!

To save on the influx of emails, I'll also write some stuff to Nick:

1) With regards to accessing your email via Outlook at home - Outlook needs
a persistant connection to the Exchange server (well used to, 2003 doesn't).
It uses its own protocol (although it does have IMAP/POP3) to do so. So what
your IT-guys need to do is have a VPN, then you would connect to your VPN
and then fire up Outlook and that's that. Either that or just open some
ports on the firewall, but that's not really a good idea. The VPN is pretty
simple to setup and connect to, so go light a fire under their ***es ;)

2) I totally agree with you on the conversation thing. I've yet to see an
email client do this well - do you have a screenshot of yours (or one that
you feel is good at this?). MS have a research project called Grand Central
that talks about this - you can find info on it here:
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?tr_id=619
<http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?tr_id=619> . Once
again, because I know Outlook very well, there some limited functionality
where you can order by Conversation, but its half-baked and doesn't pull in
items from the Sent Items folder.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/53cd5639/attachment.html

6 May 2004 - 1:02pm
Todd Warfel
2003

This is one of the things I love about Mail's Threading. Messages get
grouped together. You can either read the message in context of the
conversation, or delete 30 messages for a subject you don't care about
all at once. Violá. Love that.

On May 6, 2004, at 12:18 PM, Meara, NI wrote:

> Just give me one big mailbox with decent threading and indicate the
> difference between the different message types. To me e-mail is a
> written conversation and I need to see the whole conversation in
> context, not an artificial divide between messages.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1192 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/4ee48c48/attachment.bin

6 May 2004 - 1:06pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Conversations is one of many grouping possibilities in Outlook 2003
(actually in older versions too). Since Outlook has always been an NNTP
reader too, this has always been a part of its stuff.

this is what I mean ... Its not like tehre are really big differences
between these apps. I really feel these issues are style. The only real
issue I have heard is security and there is NO way I can negate that issue.
The positive incontravertible issue for Outlook though is interropability
(office suite) and customizability. Building my own forms for workflow, for
meeting events, etc. is pretty powerful, let alone COM object add-ons and
the use of webparts.

the rest is just subjectivity, IMHO, or esoterica.

-- dave

_____

From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Todd R.Warfel
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 2:03 PM
To: Meara, NI
Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Outlook

This is one of the things I love about Mail's Threading. Messages get
grouped together. You can either read the message in context of the
conversation, or delete 30 messages for a subject you don't care about all
at once. Violá. Love that.

On May 6, 2004, at 12:18 PM, Meara, NI wrote:

Just give me one big mailbox with decent threading and indicate the
difference between the different message types. To me e-mail is a written
conversation and I need to see the whole conversation in context, not an
artificial divide between messages.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/107dbe5b/attachment.html

6 May 2004 - 1:10pm
Todd Warfel
2003

On May 6, 2004, at 2:06 PM, David Heller wrote:

> Conversations is one of many grouping possibilities in Outlook 2003
> [...]

David,

Can you extrapolate on that?

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 957 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/6b12e704/attachment.bin

6 May 2004 - 5:15pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Todd asked me to expand (he said "extrapolate on") the following:
"Conversations is one of many grouping"

The short answer is that under "View" and then "Arrange by", there is an
option for conversation. the full list of options is:
date conversation from to folder size subject type flag attachments e-mail
account Importance Categories.
then there is an option (toggle) for "Show in Groups" ... this makes your
arrangments, not just a sort, but also an expand/collapse grouping. There
are also methods for customizing these groupings and arrangements as well.

I live in Group by mode and leave my arrange on date. My groups then are
Today, Yesterday, Day Name (till last week), Last week, 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks
ago, 1 Month, 2 months, older. The groups are also selectable and dragable.

I like how conversation and subject are not the same thing. the system
realizes that subject lines change during the course of a conversation.

Also, each grouping has slightly different behaviors that are appropriate to
it. Anyway, that's too much detail.

BTW, I totally respect the conversation mode thing. For some reason I like
date in Outlook, but have really grown accustom to the conversations of
Gmail. the threading works really nicely.

Todd, does that answer your question?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/6b551ec0/attachment.html

6 May 2004 - 6:11pm
Todd Warfel
2003

On May 6, 2004, at 6:15 PM, David Heller wrote:

> Todd, does that answer your question?

Yup.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 879 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040506/689d850f/attachment.bin

6 May 2004 - 11:35am
Elizabeth Buie
2004

Michael Bartlett writes:

1. Why not Outlook?

It's MS's Virus Transfer Protocol. :-)

2. What do you use instead?

At home, Eudora.
At work, Lotus Notes. :-(

3. Have you tried Outlook 2003?

Nope. Is there a Mac version?

Elizabeth

P.S. I got the "Virus Transfer Protocol" idea from Satirewire.com, which
unfortunately went away a year or two ago.

--
Elizabeth Buie
Computer Sciences Corporation
Rockville, Maryland
301.921.3326

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of
e-mail for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 May 2004 - 10:53am
NICK MEARA
2004

Dave Heller wrote:
> Conversations is one of many grouping possibilities in Outlook 2003
> (actually in older versions too). Since Outlook has always been an
> NNTP reader too, this has always been a part of its stuff.

Yes, it's how I view the messages in this discussion list, but
unfortunately, as Michael Bartlett said, in Outlook's Inbox this doesn't
pull in Sent messages or Drafts so I'm still only seeing one side of the
e-mail conversations I'm having (albeit a grouped view).

I'd actually really like to know where this Inbox/Sent distinction comes
from. Is it technology-driven? or perhaps it even derives from the old
in-tray/out-tray days when memos were passed around offices (not that I've
ever experienced that so it may just be a folk memory anyway).

Michael Bartlett wrote:
> Outlook needs a persistant connection to the Exchange server
> (well used to, 2003 doesn't). It uses its own protocol (although
> it does have IMAP/POP3) to do so. So what your IT-guys need to do
> is have a VPN, then you would connect to your VPN and then fire
> up Outlook and that's that. Either that or just open some ports
> on the firewall, but that's not really a good idea. The VPN is
> pretty simple to setup and connect to, so go light a fire under
> their ***es ;)

Thanks for the information and for the link, but what a hassle just to get
halfway decent access to something vitally important for any business. And
isn't this really a workaround for a design flaw in Outlook/Exchange not
properly supporting remote access? (I seem to remember that Microsoft Mail
had a separate client for remote access.)

> I've yet to see an email client do this [conversation] well
> do you have a screenshot of yours (or one that you feel is good at this?)

I'm having difficulty rustling up a screen shot of a FirstClass mailbox from
here. It's not quite there as it still show's lists of messages without the
actual text (I really like Outlook's preview text), but the grouping just
makes a lot more sense. I'd do you some explanatory Ascii art, but Exchange
is changing all my plain text e-mails to HTML (Grrr). Home time.

Cheers,

Nick.
........................................................
Nick Meara E-learning Experience Co-ordinator
ICT-IDSG, Aston University, Birmingham

'A mind is a fire to be kindled,
not a vessel to be filled.'
-- Plutarch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040507/5e1fb7fb/attachment.html

Syndicate content Get the feed