MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Kai Großjohann]

How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?

kai
-- 
~/.signature: No such file or directory

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Simon Josefsson]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?

Yes.  I collapsed the security menu as well.  The key bindings for the
sign/encrypt commands are a bit longish as well.. Hm.

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Steve Youngs]

|--==> "KG" == Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> writes:

  KG> How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?

Marcel Marceau would be proud.  How about "MIME" :-)

-- 
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---|
|            XEmacs - It's not just an editor.             |
|                    It's a way of life.                   |
|------------------------------------<youngs@xemacs.org>---|

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Simon Josefsson]

Steve Youngs <youngs@xemacs.org> writes:

>  KG> How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?
> 
> Marcel Marceau would be proud.  How about "MIME" :-)

IMHO, all-caps looks ugly in the menubar.  Remember the "MULE" menu in
early Emacs 20?  And we wouldn't want to keep Mr. Marceau from being
proud, now would we. :-)

But I don't really care, perhaps it should be MIME.

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Florian Weimer]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

>>  KG> How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?
>> 
>> Marcel Marceau would be proud.  How about "MIME" :-)
> 
> IMHO, all-caps looks ugly in the menubar.

Do you think so?  I'm not sure, but I dont use menus anyway.

> Remember the "MULE" menu in early Emacs 20?

MIME is not our abbreviation, so we should change it, IMHO.

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Per Abrahamsen]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?

Better, but still very nerdy.  Can we find a name ordinary users would
understand?

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Jody Klymak]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> 
> > How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?
> 
> Better, but still very nerdy.  Can we find a name ordinary users would
> understand?

Ummm, "Attachments"?

-- 
Jody M. Klymak               mailto:jklymak@oce.orst.edu
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sicences
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331  

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Kai Großjohann]

Jody Klymak <jklymak@OCE.ORST.EDU> writes:

> Ummm, "Attachments"?

Maybe there is too much under that menu.  It also contains items for
PGP signing and/or encrypting the message.  Hm.

kai
-- 
~/.signature: No such file or directory

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Jody Klymak]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> Jody Klymak <jklymak@OCE.ORST.EDU> writes:
> 
> > Ummm, "Attachments"?
> 
> Maybe there is too much under that menu.  It also contains items for
> PGP signing and/or encrypting the message.  Hm.

I dunno, I'd argue that every thing under that menu are
"attachment-like".  
  
The first thing most people think is "I want to *attach* this
picture to my mail".   They don't think "I'd like to use the MIME
protocol to *attach* this picture to my mail"... OK, I've convinced
myself; "Attach" would be better than "Attachments"....

But then again, "MML" never confused me.  There are only three menu
items, and I knew it had to be under one of them.

A bigger gripe would be the gratuitous sub-menus.   Attach and Insert
could be flattened IMVHO.

Cheers,  Jody
 
-- 
Jody M. Klymak               mailto:jklymak@oce.orst.edu
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sicences
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331  

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Simon Josefsson]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>
>> How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?
>
> Better, but still very nerdy.  Can we find a name ordinary users would
> understand?

Is Jody's "Attach" or "Attachment" better?

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Nevin Kapur]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
>
>> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>>
>>> How about renaming it to Mime or something like that?
>>
>> Better, but still very nerdy.  Can we find a name ordinary users would
>> understand?
>
> Is Jody's "Attach" or "Attachment" better?

How about 'Parts' of 'Components'? They are more general than 'Attach'
but less nerdy than MIME.

-- 
Nevin

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Andreas Fuchs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

On 2001-08-11, Nevin Kapur <nevin@jhu.edu> wrote:
>> Is Jody's "Attach" or "Attachment" better?
> How about 'Parts' of 'Components'? They are more general than 'Attach'
> but less nerdy than MIME.

Hmm, my favorite would be `Multi-Part', but that might be too long for a
single menu entry.

'Components' is bad, IMHO, because this term is not very widely
used. Gnus might lose its GNKSA for not using standard terminology (-:

-- 
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, asf@jabber.at, antifuchs

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 231 bytes --]

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Kai Großjohann]

Andreas Fuchs <asf@void.at> writes:

> Hmm, my favorite would be `Multi-Part', but that might be too long for a
> single menu entry.

I think what might be confusing to a user is that the user does not
expect encryption/signing and attachment to be in the same menu.  For
the encryption/signing part we might have a menu title of
"Encrypt/sign".  For the MIME multipart stuff we might have a menu
title of "Attachments".

kai
-- 
~/.signature: No such file or directory

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Karl Eichwalder]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> For the encryption/signing part we might have a menu title of
> "Encrypt/sign".  For the MIME multipart stuff we might have a menu
> title of "Attachments".

"Attach/Sign" isn't too long -- go for it! :)

-- 
ke@suse.de (work) / keichwa@gmx.net (home):              |
http://www.suse.de/~ke/                                  |      ,__o
Free Translation Project:                                |    _-\_<,
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/             |   (*)/'(*)

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Daniel Pittman]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Kai Großjohann wrote:
> Andreas Fuchs <asf@void.at> writes:
> 
>> Hmm, my favorite would be `Multi-Part', but that might be too long
>> for a single menu entry.
> 
> I think what might be confusing to a user is that the user does not
> expect encryption/signing and attachment to be in the same menu.  For
> the encryption/signing part we might have a menu title of
> "Encrypt/sign".  

Silly as it may sound, "Security"? This is what the user probably wants
to do, or to deal with, when they are going to use PGP and friends...

> For the MIME multipart stuff we might have a menu title of
> "Attachments".

That's a good name. IMO, of course.
       Daniel

-- 
Permissiveness is the principle of treating children as if they were adults;
and the tactic of making sure they never reach that stage.
        -- Thomas Szasz

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Kai Großjohann]

Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Kai Großjohann wrote:
> > Andreas Fuchs <asf@void.at> writes:
>> 
>>> Hmm, my favorite would be `Multi-Part', but that might be too long
>>> for a single menu entry.
>> 
>> I think what might be confusing to a user is that the user does not
>> expect encryption/signing and attachment to be in the same menu.  For
>> the encryption/signing part we might have a menu title of
>> "Encrypt/sign".  
>
> Silly as it may sound, "Security"? This is what the user probably wants
> to do, or to deal with, when they are going to use PGP and friends...
>
>> For the MIME multipart stuff we might have a menu title of
>> "Attachments".
>
> That's a good name. IMO, of course.

Okay.  So if the MML menu was split into two menus, we'd know that the
two menus should be named "Security" and "Attachments".

Should the MML menu be split into two?

kai
-- 
~/.signature: No such file or directory

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Vincent Bernat]

OoO Peu avant le début de l'après-midi du lundi 13 août 2001, vers
13:06, Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> disait:

> Okay.  So if the MML menu was split into two menus, we'd know that the
> two menus should be named "Security" and "Attachments".

> Should the MML menu be split into two?

My menubar is almost full, I think it is the case of many other
persons. :)

Menubars (Was: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named)

[Robin S. Socha]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 03:18:07PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Peu avant le début de l'après-midi du lundi 13 août 2001, vers 13:06, Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> disait:

> > Okay.  So if the MML menu was split into two menus, we'd know that the
> > two menus should be named "Security" and "Attachments".

Sounds good.

> > Should the MML menu be split into two?
> 
> My menubar is almost full, I think it is the case of many other
> persons. :)

You need a bigger screen or something:
http://my.gnus.org/screenshot.php?id=29

Sometimes I wonder if a proper "Gnus only" toolbar would be a Good
Thing. And while staring in awe at my own screenshot, I wonder if the
modeline-thingy for the tree frame should not have a different label.
Ummmmm... Yup.
-- 
Robin S. Socha - Your Worst Network Nightmare(tm).
http://my.gnus.org/users/robin/

Re: Menubars (Was: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named)

[Kai Großjohann]

"Robin S. Socha" <robin-dated-997971644.150029@socha.net> writes:

> Sometimes I wonder if a proper "Gnus only" toolbar would be a Good
> Thing. And while staring in awe at my own screenshot, I wonder if the
> modeline-thingy for the tree frame should not have a different label.
> Ummmmm... Yup.

Yeah, like W3 does it.

But on the other hand, while the own menu bar might be nice for the
group and summary buffers, I think that it might not be such a good
idea for the message buffers.  These are mostly normal text-entry
buffers, so all the normal menus apply there, too.  (Well, maybe not
the VC one...)

kai
-- 
~/.signature: No such file or directory

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Henrik Enberg]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:

[...]

> Okay.  So if the MML menu was split into two menus, we'd know that the
> two menus should be named "Security" and "Attachments".
>
> Should the MML menu be split into two?

People who use a small screen might not like that.  I run Emacs at 103x64, and
it would fit, but not leave a lot of free space on the menu bar for me.

Henrik
-- 
Party naked

Re: MML menu in message-mode is poorly named

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> Is Jody's "Attach" or "Attachment" better?

I like "Attachment" even though it isn't strictly (i.e., nerdly)
correct. 

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen