[Users] [Bug 2939] make Sort By/Thread Date the default

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Bonjour Paul,

Le Sat, 5 Jul 2014 08:20:06 +0100, Paul <claws at thewildbeast.co.uk> a
écrit :

> On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:56:21 +0200
> Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud at free.fr> wrote: 
> 
> > Would it be possible that both of you, André and Paul, stop arguing
> > ad personam and keep your public contributions to studying the
> > situation objectively and cooperating with other contributors to
> > get to a useful conclusion?
> 
> Well of course it's possible. It's also possible to do both, despite
> Andre's best efforts.

I don't believe i ad personam argumenting, even performed alongside
rational argumenting.

> > - when threading, "sort by date" has no meaning or usefulness,
> 
> That's wrong. In case it's been missed, this is how I('ve) always
> sort(ed) folders and continue to do so, and it works fine for me for
> years now.

I did not say that when threading, sort by date had no semantics; it
obviously has well-defined semantics, as experimenting with CM can show.
The problem is, these semantics cannot be inferred from the text of
their UI, because of the fundamental ambiguity about what "date" can
mean when applied to a thread rather than a message.

IOW, date sorting options in View/Sort can only be understood by
experimenting (and discovering their actual semantics), not by reading
the menu alone (and relying on their ambiguous meaning). My proposal is
only to make them unambiguous.

> > - the default setting is "Thread view" and "sort by date", which
> > means a thread started long ago will be displayed along "older"
> > threads even if it received a new reply recently.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > - that the "thread date" be defined as the oldest or newest thread
> >   message date, depending on a two-option switch in the View/Sort
> >   menu, similar in appearance to the Ascending/Descending switch,
> >   only with "Thread date is oldest message date/Thread date is
> >   newest message date";
> 
> It seems to me, (but I may misunderstand you), that it won't only be
> similar in appearance, but will also do exactly the same thing.
> Therefore I see no point in it.

I suspect you are misunderstanding me, then, because the "Thread date
is oldest/newest message date" switch will absolutely not do the same
thing as the "Ascending/Descending" switch. The "Thread date" switch
would define on what key the threads would be sorted, not in what
order they would be. IOW, you can sort:

- by oldest message, ascending;
- by newest message, ascending;
- by oldest message, descending;
- by newest message, descending.

... and these will produce four different orderings.

> > I know I've said this already; however, it has received no feedback,
> > not even an acknowledgement of existence, which makes it hard for
> > me to decide whether my suggestion is deemed pointless or simply
> > ignored because a personal argument is developing.
> 
> In my view, nothing needs changing with the defaults, and
> the /view/sort/ menu is good as it is. So, it's neither.

Again, note that my proposal explicitly preserves the default
behaviour.

This leaves the "good as it is" part, which I disagree with,
especially regarding the expressed meaning (as opposed, once again, to
the actual semantics, which as I said are fine, only badly expressed).
That is why I suggest a change in UI only, and only to make sure the
user understands the semantics of the date sorting options without
having to experiment. 

However, as Chad points out, this is different from what bug 2939 is
about.
 
> Paul

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.