• Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

Comments (40)

1 localhost commented Permalink

I'm not sure our users always understand it (they certainly use the regular reply with history when they shouldn't), but some do use it. And some of the ones using it SEEM to understand it. ;-) I'm not sure there's a perfect way to describe it -- "Reply with Plain Text History (best for Internet)" would be clearest, but it's way too wordy -- but this is the kind of thing we occasionlly tell our users about. (I think we mentioned it in our upgrade-to-6 training [we were coming from 4.5], but this means that folks hired since then don't know about it...d'oh!)

 
"Reply with Plain Text History" would be okay, but "Reply and add >" sounds confusing. But honestly, to me, the current phrase might be best...it makes it clear (without explaining how) that it's best for replying to Internet e-mail. IMHO, anyway. ;-)

2 localhost commented Permalink

In all reality, I don't think end users understand what Plaun text is, and they sure know what > is (sorry to disagree with you Kendall). Haha Beth, this helps.

 
If you are working on it, I would suggest to make "without attachment" the FIRST reply option anyway. Almost always replies on an attached document are comments and the **** attachment keeps on bouncing back and forth without reason, "just because". Maybe make it even context sensitive, meaning.
 
Doc without an attachment would give
 
Reply O without history O with history O with history, add >
 
Doc with attachment
 
Reply O without history O without attachment O with attachment O .....

3 localhost commented Trackback

If you think it's too many choices, PLEASE check out how we addressed it in the OpenNTF Mail Experience template.

 
http://www.openntf.org/Projects/pmt.nsf/ProjectLookup/OpenNTF+Mail+Experience
 
Basically, it's configurable, and you can default the behavior. You could jump ahead of us by doing two things:
 
1) Allow administrators to set some/all of this behavior via policies. This is chiefly for attachment handling. I know a dozen Domino admins who would kill to be able to default replies to NOT include attachments. I'm sure you can understand why.
 
2) Allow different defaulting behaviors for pure Notes conversations vs. internet conversations.
 
As far as your actual question goes, there's probably no solution that will seem good in the usability labs. Using that format for email replies is pretty much a power-user feature. You have to have been around internet email for a while to recognize what it is and why it's important. My suggestion would be to keep the description simple, because it's only going to be used by people who know what it means anyway. Even better if instead of making it an option on the action bar, you just make it a switch in the preferences somewhere.

4 localhost commented Permalink

My users know what it means, although it's only because I tell them during training. I love to be able to set it using a policy and then just have a Reply button ;o)

5 localhost commented Permalink

I'm totally with Nathan here. Don't give users a per-mail choice of how to reply to email. Samantha should have a "Reply" button, and that's it - nothing else. People are WAY overloaded with options here.

 
Give users the ability to set their reply preferences once, and never have to look at them again. And, let administrators set reply preferences as policies, with the ability to lock the user out of them.
 
As a side note, one problem is that people overuse "Reply to all" reflexively, and often improperly. We dealt with that by removing the "Reply to all" button, and adding a new "Reply to all" button in the newly composed email, which simply fills out the CC field when clicked. YMMV on that one...
 
I'm pretty sure that this is the most solid answer you're going to get on this one. :)

6 localhost commented Trackback

Agreeing with Nathan and adding a bit.

 
(1) Default should be configurable. For most it would probably be "Reply without Attachements" (this is the way Outlook works as well).This one change will save companies thousands of dollars, in disk space; not mention the performance increases (or lack of degredation).
 
(2) Personally, I would like to see cascading menus (like the [Start] menu in Windows. Click on [Reply] then have [To Sender >] and [To All >] with the secondary menus giving all the choices.
 
As for "Internet Style" I would suggest the menu option look like this:
 
Reply using Internet Style (>>)
 
Lastly, one might consider the "without attachments" options to say:Reply with history, but w/o attachments
 
I've trained a few hundred former Outlook users in the past and I did have to explain all the choice, you might as well make the option totally self evident; albeit a mouthful.

7 localhost commented Permalink

Mary Beth,

 
This time you touch a very sensible point for me.I cannot remain silent for this one.
 
First "Reply with Internet style" means nothing to users.There is auser configurable choice for mail headers and when the user selects "Plain text" then everything from Memo, to reply, forward ... should really be plain text (no tables, fields, icons, ...).Now there should be an additionnal preferences setting to select if reply/forward should include attachements or not (of course must be configurable via policies too. - to me the default should be NOT to include attachments).Another preferences setting should be to select if reply includes the history.Then the reply options should be :- reply, and- reply to all.These should act according to preferences settings.Now if a user wants to override the settings for once, the forward options should be used :- forward (uses preferences setting for attachments but forces history inclusion)- forward w or w/o attachments (the menu displays the contrary to the attachment preferences setting and allows to forward attachment if "do not include attachments" is preferred and vice versa).
 
To me theses questions are VERY important./Pierre

8 localhost commented Permalink

To jump on the bandwagon (and steer it my own way):

 
1. As long as someone mentioned it, IMHO reply with history should not include attachments; the alternate option should be "Reply with history (with attachments)". (I.e., flip the default.)
 
2. Someone else said to remove options; no, don't do that (though probably we don't need quite as many as there are). Our users, at least, use different options depending on the e-mail they're replying to -- there is no one-size-fits all. They would HATE having to go into preferences each time they wanted to change how they replied to a given e-mail! Yuck.

9 localhost commented Permalink

p.s. but yes, the option to set the default reply behaviour is a nice idea. (though this seems like it would either require an extra option, or would mean that the reply drop-down menu would be slightly different on each person's machine....)

10 localhost commented Trackback

"Our users, at least, use different options depending on the e-mail they're replying to -- there is no one-size-fits all. They would HATE having to go into preferences each time they wanted to change how they replied to a given e-mail! Yuck."

 
Agreed.
 
Not sure what the ideal phrase for the menu option might be.just some random ideas:"Reply with indented text""Reply with quoted original""Reply with prefixed original""Reply with history in plain text"

11 localhost commented Permalink

I agree with Kendall. I like how it works today. If I could change anything, it would be like this:

 
Today we have these options:Reply > ReplyReply > Reply with HistoryReply > Reply without Attachment(s)Reply > Reply with Internet-Style History
 
I would change them to the following:Reply > ReplyReply > Reply with History [means: full history, no attachments]Reply > Reply with Attachment(s) [means: full history, with attachments]Reply > Reply with Plain Text [means: plain text, no formatting or attachments]
 
I actually do not like the OpenNTF style of reply. I prefer IBM's current style.

12 localhost commented Permalink

@Brian - there has to be a per-mail reply choice.

 
There are times when I want to reply and keep an attachment (when I might cc another person on the reply for example), and other times when I don't.
 
I think the best solution suggested so far is to have the default reply with history but no attachment with an option to reply with full history including attachment as the alternative.
 
As far as replacing Internet-style, I think "plain text" probably is the simplest in terms of describing the result of the action. "Quoted" would be recognized by users of newsreaders etc., but that is likely not to represent the main user population.

13 localhost commented Permalink

I agree with everyone else. It appears the options have been created by techies/programmers (no offense) without speaking with users.

 
Can we have the reply options as a configurable option, and if the user wants you can enable the extra reply options? Or have it as a right click option to enable/disable. I'd like just "Reply" and "Reply to All"
 
Reduce the number of options...please!
 
Pete

14 localhost commented Permalink

We change our template to have the following:

 
Reply- Reply- Reply with History (no attachments)- Reply with History (include attachments)
 
Reply to All- Reply- Reply with History (no attachments)- Reply with History (include attachments)
 
The Internet style is removed.
 
The no attachments options are listed first - trying to trick the users to not send that large powerpoint file around again and again, but oh they're wily.

15 localhost commented Trackback

FYI - The next version of the OpenNTF Mail Experience will have policy-enforcable attachment defaults. Figured out how to do that this morning.

 
I MIGHT also allow a default control for internet-replies vs. Notes-replies.
 
Mary Beth, we're going to keep pushing the envelope and trying to keep IBM playing catch-up. :-D

Add a Comment Add a Comment