[Athen] Best practise for threads in discussions.
burke at ucla.edu
Fri Feb 6 09:50:25 PST 2009
At 12:01 AM 2/6/2009, Pratik Patel wrote:
>As usual I have lots of opinions about this, having used all sorts of
>methods. Sometimes I prefer a combination of techniques, depending on the
>context. I agree with both Patrick and Sean. Can I be any more
>schizophrenic? I'll use this e-mail to respond to points made by both
>Patrick and Sean.
In this case schizophrenia is warranted, since there are so many
different types of interactions carried on via email.
For technical discussions covering a number of detailed points,
interleaving of replies is probably inevitable & necessary, & it can
improve clarity to have the exact original & reply phrases right next
to each other.
However, I have also been driven crazy when, say, 15 or 20 people
replied to a questionnaire, nearly everyone leaving the full question
text before their two-word replies. At the end I had unwillingly
memorized all the questions but forgotten who had answered what. ...
>Pratik describes Gmail:
>I think Gmail does a fantastic job of grouping and, in turn, using
>heading navigation to allow one to jump from response to
>response. Within messages, the Gmail
>interface often ends up hiding headers, original messages, responses to
>original, etc. It all depends on what level of nesting we're talking about.
>It allows one to unhide a particular message or hidden section on demand.
>It is very very efficient. If screen readers were more reliable navigating
>through Gmail, I'd abandon Outlook in a heartbeat.
Wow, I'll have to revisit Gmail, because this is exactly the
functionality we need!
Just add an "Invert" feature, to read the components of a message in
chronological or reverse order & we'll be set. Top-posters & their
opponents can all be happy. :)
I'll also heartily endorse Hadi's comments that came in as I was writing this.
Patrick J. Burke
UCLA Disabilities &
Phone: 310 206-6004
E-mail: burke <at> ucla. edu
More information about the athen-list