[sylpheed:33913] Re: some inconsistencies in the 'mark' dialog

Hiroyuki Yamamoto hiro-y at kcn.ne.jp
Mon Apr 26 15:33:00 JST 2010


Hello,

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:46:32 +0200
melodramus at online.de wrote:

> 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.

Hmm, maybe I should change 'Mark/Mark' as 'Mark/Set flag' to make it
recognizable. I think you are also right about the position of 'Unmark'.

-- 
Hiroyuki Yamamoto <hiro-y at kcn.ne.jp>


More information about the Sylpheed mailing list