Frank Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:38:52 +0000:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:33:49 +0000, Duncan wrote: > >> Download: >> x Watched >> o High-scored >> o Medium-scored >> o Zero-scored > > Download > X All > o Watched > o High-Scored > o Medium-scored > o Zero-scored > > In spite of having a negative score, I like to download all the > messages. Some others may also. These are checkboxes, so more than one could be checked. All wouldn't need to be included, but negative and ignored could be. I simply didn't include them because by traditional usage, they'd not need to be. Negative scores would then be generally ignored, so not downloaded by default, but still there in case a reply referred to them and you wished to read them after all. Ignored scores would be those you don't care to read for /any/ reason, so would be deleted by default. However, you make a case that the flexibility needs extended for the unusual usage case, and I'd agree, as I tend to have certain unusual usage patterns as well, tho not this particular one. (FWIW, my big one is a strong preference for light text/foreground on a dark background. The original hard-coded color choices for things like URLs and sigs were therefore virtually unusable for me, since due to the assumptions made about light backgrounds, the contrast simply wasn't enough to be usable against dark backgrounds. Charles was quite responsive in fixing it, however, once I mentioned that this was a big enough no-go for me that I couldn't effectively use new-pan at all, and was sticking with old-pan and would eventually need to switch news clients if it wasn't fixed. So yeah, I know the feeling, and certainly wouldn't want to be the one stopping an unusual usage by someone else.) >>Mark-read: >> o Zero-scored >> x Negative-scored >> x Ignored > > In this one, there is no need to mark Zero scored, is there? The manual > Mark-Group Read should take care of that. Make the first choice None, > or just have the other two choices. This would be the reverse uncommon usage, but one I foresaw. Conceivably, some efficient time managers who've optimized their scores ONLY wish to worry about posts that have been specifically scored up. Since zero is the default, it's possible they'd want these marked read (or even deleted) automatically, so as not to have to worry about them at all. Of course, it wouldn't make a sensible default, as one would have to highly optimize their scores before this could work, but it could be useful for some after they've done that optimizing. I still think the first idea, the dropdown boxes, with download set to "at least" X score level and read/deleted set to "at most" X scorelevel, would be the simplest and most intuitive. The same scorelevel list could be used to populate all three dropdowns. Of course, there's probably some other unusual usage case where someone wants to delete watched articles while auto-downloading ignored articles, or some such, and this would break that, but IMO that's extreme enough the advantages of the simplicity/intuitiveness of the interface arguably outweigh the relatively minor loss of flexibility at the extreme edge. Keeping in mind of course that someone operating that far out of the norm should be able to rejigger their scoring if necessary, to work within the flexibility pan would then allow, and considering that it'd be better than what we have now in any case. Of course, if someone can generate a plausible usage case for what I'm calling the extreme, I'm certainly open to changing my mind (and noting that it's Charles, or possibly someone with the skills to code up and submit the appropriate patch, not me, that's doing the coding, so it's his opinion that really counts). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
