difficult e-mail?

[John Johnson]

In response to Joe's message:  neither am I fond of a "let's go outside
and fight attitude".  Now that wasn't quite what I intended in my previous
message, although I will grant that there was strong attitude showing, and
a certain bluntness and lack of amplification from which gentler souls
might fairly take an objection.  However, that message wasn't primarily
directed to gentler souls--it was directed to Rich Littleton, who seems to
have the rhetorical finesse of a driverless bulldozer.  (Easy, folks!  I
don't say that is necessarily a bad thing, or mean it as a moral judgment. 
It's just a reality that has to be dealt with.)(Besides, sometimes we need
bulldozers.)  Sorry Joe, and my apologies to any other gentler souls that
were standing too close when the charge went off.

Let's look at the issue.  Rich has been going long and hard on a tirade
that the e-mail "system" we teach in the SCN e-mail classes is "too
difficult" (or "complex" or "user unfriendly") for our users.  So?  What
we teach in the classes is constrained to what we use on the system.  (We
should teach how to use, say, Hotmail?)  Ah, but perhaps Rich meant to
raise the issue of what e-mail front ends we _should_ have available on
the system.  Fine, I have no objection to that.  (But that is not properly
an issue for the e-mail class.)

Now I can speak from personal experience (having taught the classes, and
worked on the Help Desk) that _any_ e-mail front-end, and perhaps even the
concept of e-mail in itself, seems to be too difficult for some people.
But to adopt a requirement that e-mail should be _zero_ difficulty is
absurd:  there is no such beast.  The best we can do is decide which of
the extant choices is _least_ difficult.  (Or fastest, or bluest, or
whatever criteria we think appropriate.)  And I have no objection to a
discussion of the various merits and qualities of various e-mail
front-ends. (I am also in full agreement with the rest of the points Joe
made about the relative qualities of different programs.) 

What I do object to is Rich trashing Pine (or was it Unix?) without
showing us anything he thinks is better.  And I strongly object to his
trying to get a commitment that we should get a friendlier "system"
(presumably a front-end that he thinks is friendlier--or is he
contemplating replacing SMTP?) without telling us what this mysterious
friendlier system is.  That is tantamount to signing a blank check. 
Therefore my challenge to Rich:  what is this mysterious "friendlier" 
system(s)?  He wants us to change, but to what?  

Mind, I am not saying that Pine is best of all possibilities.  But unless
someone can show something better it is rather senseless to continue
trashing it.  

(Rich also insinuates that I was trying to derail this discussion of
e-mail front-ends.  Not so.  I am trying to get it back _on_ the
rails.) 

My apologies again to anyone that thinks this message was too long.  But
do consider:  1) when explication is needed brevity isn't always good, and
2) my previous message ("put up or shut up") did have the (abeit question-
able!) merit of brevity.

(For anyone that wants to chew this further, I've included below the
message that I previously responded to.  Unedited, of course.) 

=== JJ =================================================================

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> JJ,
> 
> You did this before.  What is the purpose of your question?  If I give you
> 2 or 3 which are more friendly, what is your response?  Will you then
> publicly join in an effort to  get a friendlier system?
> 
> Or was your question meant only to derail the discussion.  
> 
> But I'm not the one that has to be convinced.  Its the people who get an
> account and then have to deal with the complex e-mail system.  It also
> appears to be the SPL.
> 
> Tell them how easy Pine and Freeport e-mail programs are.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> *****  Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded.  ******
> 
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, John Johnson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Rich:  I, also, "am not impressed that the terminology became the issue."
> > But the rest of us are not mind-readers; and since we do not have direct
> > access to your mind we have to go by what you say.  If you use the wrong
> > term, it _does_ become an issue.  So be more careful!
> > 
> > As to the main point of the issue:  Pine was designed, and is generally
> > deemed to be, as "friendly" as possible.  Of course, there is an inherent
> > contradiction here:  "friendly" is often expected to be both powerful
> > (lots of choices) and simple (few choices).  And _any_ system that one is
> > familiar with tends to seem friendlier than any other system.  But
> > allowing for all that, I don't think you can point to any other e-mail
> > program that is more "friendly" than Pine.  (Can you?)
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hold it, hold it.
> > > 
> > > Two Points
> > > 
> > > 1. The issue is not the name of the software.  I initially referred to
> > > Freeport E-mail and Pine as Unix=based programs (also, "Unix programs"). 
> > > I thought I was speaking analogously to calling pre-Windows Wordperfect a
> > > DOS program.  Apparently that is incorrect and you can run Freeport and
> > > Pine on other operating systems so it is incorrect to refer to either
> > > Freeport e-mail or Pine e-mail as "Unix-based" or "Unix programs". My
> > > apologies. 
> > > 
> > > 2. However, I'm not impressed that the terminology became the issue.  The
> > > issue under discussion when this came up was that Freeport and Pine (on
> > > whatever operating system they run on, I guess) are difficult for users. 
> > > 
> > > The library also thinks they are difficult for users.
> > > 
> > > 	a.	This affects potential SCN user loyalty.
> > > 	b.	This affects Seattle Public Library assessment of SCN's
> > > contribution.
> > > 
> > > Those are the issues.
> > > 
> > > Now, let's deal with these issues.  
> > > 
> > > Okay?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Rich
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > 
> > > *****  Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded.  ******
> > > 
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > > unsubscribe services
> > > END
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END