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

Comments (27)

1 localhost commented Permalink

That's dissapointing, but if you're delaying this, perhaps when you do get to revisit it, you could look at overhauling it instead.

Forget synching it, just put the contacts straight into the mail file. This would just make life easier for everyone.
Oh, and one other thing (if you're taking requests :) ). The world would be a better place if we could do away with the location doc, or at least the home server/mail file part.
Whenever there are problems with Notes - 90% of the time it's because this is incorrect. If notes could just work out your home server/mail file by the user ID, then this would solve the problem. Maybe there are issues with this, I don't know...but perhaps you could consider it.
All the bestNathan Chandler

2 localhost commented Trackback

A respectful reality check ...

gmail handles my contacts much better than Notes does (admittedly I don't have many). Why would people get excited about a complicated kludge to fix a broken design in what should be a simple function?

3 localhost commented Trackback

Disappointing, but an understandable decision... I'm with Nathan wrt getting rid of the separate Contacts DB and merging completely with the mail file. Maybe one for Notes Next...

Thanks (as ever) for letting us have our say and for the open communication on the issue.

4 localhost commented Permalink

Maybe the other issues generated more debate because there is a greater polarisation of views. For this issue I think I saw only one person who asked for the status quo, everyone else said asked for the default to be an automated synch (or just store the data in Mail). Just a thought.

The network issue is not necessarily a valid reason for this decision. Roaming users already replicate that information on a regular basis and so the bandwidth is already being taken up. Sites that don't use roaming profiles often use alternative mechanisms to achieve the same result, storing notes profiles on network drives so that they can roam that way or use windows profiles and copy their data across to the network when people log on/off. You would be amazed at some of the solutions people have come up with for this.
Thanks for the update and for the chance to be heard.Looking forward to the policy controlled version. :-)

5 localhost commented Permalink

The reason you didn't get many posts is because it's pretty obvious to everyone how it should work. Maybe some day:)

6 localhost commented Trackback

The reason you didn't get as many responses is that you're not talking about changing prior behavior. You're asking about changing something that the user base doesn't even have yet.

Plus, it's "do we automatically turn on this checkbox for you?" vs. "we're thinking of dropping this functionality." That's a pretty big difference in proposition.

7 localhost commented Permalink

Can the development 'team' provide some more information as to why it's holding out having a users contacts IN THEIR MAIL FILE!!!!

Can you at least agree that this is a logical approach.

8 localhost commented Permalink

I suspect that the reason you didn't get many comments (at least, the reason I didn't add my comments) was that most readers agreed with the comments that were already posted.

The Actions... Synchronize Contacts agent isn't available in the new template. Users have spent the last few years looking in their mail file to sync their contacts, and most haven't touched the address book preferences since initially choosing whether to sort by first or last name. It will be a rare person who finds the box on their own, and an annoyed person who has to go through an extra step after IT tells them how.
I think replication of contacts should be enabled by default. If that can't be done, add the line to the top of the replicator list but leave it unchecked. If that can't be done, allow it to be policy configurable from the 8.0.0 release. If that can't be done, don't make the change at all - a half-enabled feature is a bug.

9 localhost commented Permalink

I'm agree with Peter, could you please tell us why contacts are not in the mail file ???

Peter you're totaly right, it's just logical.

10 localhost commented Trackback

Peter - No, many people do not agree it is the logical approach. The logical approach is to make contacts (and the journal) part of the overall PIM package that you can get at from anywhere without throwing more stuff into the mail file. The mail file is already way to big .. email, calendar, todos, etc. More views and documents will just make it slower. You also have to change all the Quota code. You also have to have every single third-party (companies like Blackberry and Cardscan and all the Business Partner applications) change to where you read the contacts.

I have many customers that have over 10k contacts in their personal name & address book. I would not want to see 10k records in the mail file. I do want shared, delegated contact control. I just think there are better ways to do it then just shoving the contacts in the mail file.

11 localhost commented Trackback

Amen to that, John.

Don't you people realize that having a single NSF per user on the server is a huge limitation, and this whole "sync contacts" thing is a GIANT HACK?
What we need is simple: PABs go on the server, too. And they're accessible and have delegation rules, just like your mail. But it's a separate NSF, just like it is now.
That's architecturally sound, AND it achieves what's needed: easy-to-deploy delegated contacts.

12 localhost commented Permalink

John and Nathan, first, Contact view is already present in the mail file, you have to know that Blackberry by default synchronize device contact with this hide contact view in the mail file, and only with the Version 6 and the roaming it is more easy to work with blackberry and contact. I have several customers and thousand of notes client, I can tell you that customers with 10k contacts is very very rare. But customers who want share easily their contacts directly from their lotus notes client is not rare at all and they are they are tired to wait this function.

13 localhost commented Permalink

Mary Beth,

Respectfully, I think you've made the wrong decision. If a company's network infrastructure can't handle the increased network traffic from contact synchronization they can turn the feature off when they deploy Notes 8. If they're not sure of the impact, that's what testing is for.
For the vast majority who will see the benefits of this change with no negative impact, it should be on by default. Making your users (and support departments) jump through hoops to enable useful features continues to provide ammunition to the 'I hate Notes' crowd and reflects poorly on the product.

14 localhost commented Trackback

Ah, good point Bruno. John and I never considered the wishes of actual customers and users. Thanks for bringing that to the table.

15 localhost commented Permalink

I don't know for you, for me it's my job every day. But if we are on this site, I think it's for the same goal. ;-)have a good day

Add a Comment Add a Comment