Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-30 Thread SqM
Sorry for not answering earlier on this thread.. Xmas you know..;-) >>> The problem here is that there should be a "display order" up-down or >>> down-up which should have nothing to do with "sort order". Some people >>> like new mail in the bottom of the screen and some like them in the >>> top.

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-21 Thread Simon Bryan
> > Except that I think people who want the "next by date" functionality > actually *do* want to read the link as "Previous" or "Next" ?? > > I was thinking that we'd leave that alone but possibly add a carefully > worded options setting in the display preferences if at all. > Been reading p

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-20 Thread Dave Calafrancesco
> Well, I hear this. The conflict seems to be that users want to view their > newest messages at the top of the mailbox listing, but "previous/next" might need to behave in the opposite fashion that it does now. Yuck. Well, if anyone has any bright ideas for how to phrase such a convoluted sett

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-20 Thread Artee
> > > >> Well, I hear this. The conflict seems to be that users want to view > their >> newest messages at the top of the mailbox listing, but "previous/next" > >might need to behave in the opposite fashion that it does now. Yuck. >>Well, if anyone has any bright ideas for how to phrase such a c

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-20 Thread Dave Calafrancesco
> Well, I hear this. The conflict seems to be that users want to view their > newest messages at the top of the mailbox listing, but "previous/next" might need to behave in the opposite fashion that it does now. Yuck. Well, if anyone has any bright ideas for how to phrase such a convoluted set

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-20 Thread p dont think
> >> Previous / Next by date would be some users preference, and I > understand > >> that it's not there yet. No big deal to me. I just thought that > maybe > >> it > >> was there and I couldn't find it. > > > > Well, I hear this. The conflict seems to be that users want to view > their >

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-19 Thread Artee
>> Previous / Next by date would be some users preference, and I understand >> that it's not there yet. No big deal to me. I just thought that maybe >> it >> was there and I couldn't find it. > > Well, I hear this. The conflict seems to be that users want to view their > newest messages at the

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-19 Thread p dont think
>>> If the list of messages displayed is thought of as a list, from top of >>> screen to bottom of screen, then next takes you to the next message >>> lower >>> in the list (down the screen) and previous takes you to the previous >>> message (up the screen). Whether the message will be older or new

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-19 Thread Artee
>> It seems that the Previous and Next selections in the message view are >> reversed. When I click on Previous, I get the newer message and Next >> gives me the older message. Have I missed a setting or am I misunderstanding something? >>> >>> enable server side sorting if you can.

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-19 Thread SqM
> >>> It seems that the Previous and Next selections in the message view are > reversed. When I click on Previous, I get the newer message and Next > gives me the older message. >>> Have I missed a setting or am I misunderstanding something? >> >> enable server side sorting if you can. >> >> conf

Re: [SM-USERS] previous and next in message view

2003-12-19 Thread Dave Calafrancesco
>> It seems that the Previous and Next selections in the message view are reversed. When I click on Previous, I get the newer message and Next gives me the older message. >> Have I missed a setting or am I misunderstanding something? > > enable server side sorting if you can. > > conf.pl -> 4. Ge