Tickets :: Comment on [#11078] Change the default value for 'mailbox

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: .___.._. __ . ,.___ \| \| / ` \./ [__ \| _\|_\__. \| \|
Comment	>>> What is the most important thing to a user in a mailbox? Messages >>> that they have not yet seen. This is way more useful than loading a >>> mailbox and then having to scroll through all sorts of pages to find >>> the first unseen message. >>> >>> And this sort is the only option that works as expected with both >>> sort directions. >> >> Except it isn't as my experience with users shows. We often get calls >> with questions "How do I adjust the mailbox so it would show me the >> newest messages on top, just like Gmail does? > > I don't care what Gmail does. Any argument that begins with "Gmail > does it this way..." is instantly a loser in my book. Gmail does ALL > sorts of things ass-backward and stupid. The important query is > instead why one way of doing things is better than the other. > > Same goes for the "you have to cater to what people are > expecting/used to" argument. That is complete BS. If you are doing > things properly, users will adapt (quickly). Otherwise you are > arguing that all design decisions will be made by Google, Apple, etc. > since they are the most popular. But most popular != best. > >> Technically, ideally, the point of IMAP is to do message sorting >> server side. > > This is an inaccurate statement. By design, IMAP is designed NOT to > sort messages by default (sorting was only added server-side after > the fact). The only built-in sorting mechanism in base IMAP is > sorting by arrival ascending. > >> Even if some mailboxes doesn't receive mail, using that kind of >> sorting on Inbox gives far more advantages than does harm. IMHO >> descending sorting is more... natural way presenting information. > > I'll just stop here and note that thread sorting is completely > useless when it is done by descending sort. > > The fact that we disagree so much indicates that one setting is not > clearly preferable to the other setting. Thus, there is no reason to > change the default - all things being equal, we should keep the > status quo to confuse users as least as possible.
Attachment
Watch this ticket

Saved Queries