At 5:22 PM +0900 2/1/04, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
Much of Nathaniel's list appears to be targeting unstated problems. In
some cases, the targeting might be right but the suggested solution is
only one of several.
So, here's the game I like to try playing, when faced with a technical
task and a technical group, for a human result:
State the issues in entirely non-technical terms. What enhancements
do we seek, in terms that are visible and important to end-users and
to operators? No reference to protocols or formats is permitted.
Talk only in terms of user interactions and operator actions.
This is an excellent idea. For one thing, it forces a problem to be
stated explicitly, and in terms of the endpoints (ok, the biological
organisms generally referred to as "human") .
While it appears the examples you give are only intended as
illustrations of the method, you've articulated several issues that
deserve comment as they stand. (But I'll only pick a couple --
perhaps each of these should be their own thread...)
For example, we want users to be able to exchange email in their
native language.
At 5:15 PM +0100 2/1/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I think most of them already do that...
The tacit assumption is that all parties to the message have the same
native language. Accepting that assumption, I generally agree.
Although I'm not sure that those not using romanized scripts (or at
least those that have a strong similarity to roman scripts) would say
this is convenient or even possible.
We want them to be able to have addresses that are
expressed in their native character sets.
At 5:15 PM +0100 2/1/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
This is very dangerous anyone having a non-latin email address can't
expect to receive mail from people who don't master this character
set. So someone who speeks a non-latin language as well as a latin
one, would always have to provide two representations of his/her
email address in order to be reachable in both languages.
Well, now you've gone and made the tacit assumption explicit,
Iljitsch. Should it be possible for a sender using a romanized
script to address a message destined for a receiver using an oriental
script (to pick one specific situation)?
At 5:15 PM +0100 2/1/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Ok. The main thing that I desire from a new mail system is more
control over the mail I receive, and better feedback over what I
send. Because I run a business, I need to be able to receive mail
from people I don't know. However, I want to be sure it's actual
_people_ sending me messages and not robots programmed to abuse the
mail system. I now have decent anti-spam software, but the trouble
is that I still have to go through all rejected messages to see
whether there are any false positives.
Is this the question you're posing?
How can receivers increase their confidence that messages they
receive are specifically intended for them?
Putting this as a goal to be achieved:
Receivers should be able to distinguish messages specifically
addressed to them from those that are not.
--
john noerenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
While the belief we have found the Answer can separate us
and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues
to bring us together, that makes and keeps us human.
-- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------