[sylpheed:33910] Re: some inconsistencies in the 'mark' dialog

[melodramus at online.de]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 18:41:48 +0300
Cristian Secară <orice at secarica.ro> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:26:35 +0200, melodramus at online.de wrote:
> 
> > first, there are the fully unintuitive namings like
> > mark->mark/unmark (for what?)
> 
> Strictly for "unmark", I use this when:
> - I intend to move a message, but then I change my mind; in this case
> I use the explicit "unmark" from context menu
> - I hit the Delete toolbar button and mistakenly mark something for
> deletion that I didn't intended to; since I don't know how to
> otherwise un-mark the delete action, I either click twice the
> envelope column for that message, or use the explicit "unmark" from
> context menu.
> 
> So the unmark can be used at least in two separate situations.
> Don't know about mark, though.
>

quite, i never used it. if it just sets a reminder, possibly it
should be named like this. and, possibly, unmark should be put at the
end of the list, just for better semantics. opening the 'mark' folder
and being greeted with 'unmark' is a bit strange. also, being greeted
with simple 'mark/unmark' options, as if there's nothing else, to
detect that there is actually more below is semantically inconsistent
too. but maybe i'm a fundamentalist on this.

> Cristi


MeloDramus <melodramus at online.de>