Reading e-mail.

Jan Pardoe wrote:
> I, on the other hand, don't use a screen reader and
still find
> bottom-posting annoying and a waste of my time.  when
I've been
> reading the whole thread and I know what the person
before
> said, what I want now is to see the reply.  It's not
helpful
> to have to wade through the previous message again in
order
> to get at the new information.

Here, I will intersperse, because there are two points which
I want to respond 
to separately.

Look at your paragraph; it begins with "I, on the other
hand..."  What other 
hand?  It's not clear at all what you're responding to,
because the comment 
you're responding to is below your text, rather than above
it as it would be 
in any other reading context.  While I enjoyed both the
movie "Memento" and 
the backwards Seinfeld episode, I find English text quite a
bit easier to read 
when it is presented linearly.

(Also, in this particular case, my message ended with a
question about why 
screen readers can't figure out the difference between
quoted and non-quoted 
text, which is not what your "I, on the other
hand..." is responding to).

> When I reply, I edit the message to remove unnecessary
> previous messages from the bottom.  If the message or
my
> reply is complex, I insert my reply points into the
message
> I'm replying to.  In most cases (for example, this one)
that
> isn't necessary.  I've never seen a case where putting
my
> reply completely below the message I'm replying to
served any
> useful purpose.  Which isn't to say it doesn't work for
you,
> just that it's incorrect to imply that anyone who
doesn't use
> a screen reader will prefer bottom-posting.

I acknowledge that some people prefer top-posting, but
generally I feel that 
that is due to laziness rather than any real benefit gained
by top-posting.

In any case, it should be clear that it is easier to change
software than to 
alter human behavior.  An option to "ignore quoted
text" or "read quoted text 
last" should be trivial to add to a screen reader; in
fact, if 
interspersed-quoting is a problem for those using screen
readers, I'm 
surprised it hasn't been done already.

-- 
Tom Holub (tom_holubLS.Berkeley.EDU, 510-642-9069)
Director of Computing, College of Letters & Science
249 Campbell Hall
<http://LS.berkeley.e
du/lscr/>

------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.

Obviously what we need is QML, the Quoting Markup Language,
based on
XML so that the structure of quotes and replies to quotes is
kept in
a way parseable by potential screen readers while allowing
for those
reading visually to maintain their reading habits.

<quote author="Tom Holub <tomls.berkeley.edu>" date="some reasonable
 date string" message-id="23542jjfj34jls.berkeley.edu" threadid="254821jjj234micronet-list.listlink.berkeley.edu">
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah because foobar foobar foobar foobar
even though
you said:
    <quote author="Lucia Greco <lgrecoberkeley.edu>" date="some reasonable
 date string" message-id="2354asdje234jberkeley.edu"
<threadid="254821jjj234micronet-list.listlink.berkeley.edu">
    But, this that and the other thing.
    </quote>
</quote>

Only half-joking,
Jon

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:32:57AM -0800, Tom Holub wrote:
> Jan Pardoe wrote:
> >I, on the other hand, don't use a screen reader and
still find
> >bottom-posting annoying and a waste of my time. 
when I've been
> >reading the whole thread and I know what the person
before
> >said, what I want now is to see the reply.  It's
not helpful
> >to have to wade through the previous message again
in order
> >to get at the new information.
> 
> Here, I will intersperse, because there are two points
which I want to 
> respond to separately.
> 
> Look at your paragraph; it begins with "I, on the
other hand..."  What 
> other hand?  It's not clear at all what you're
responding to, because the 
> comment you're responding to is below your text, rather
than above it as it 
> would be in any other reading context.  While I enjoyed
both the movie 
> "Memento" and the backwards Seinfeld episode,
I find English text quite a 
> bit easier to read when it is presented linearly.
> 
> (Also, in this particular case, my message ended with a
question about why 
> screen readers can't figure out the difference between
quoted and 
> non-quoted text, which is not what your "I, on the
other hand..." is 
> responding to).
> 
> >When I reply, I edit the message to remove
unnecessary
> >previous messages from the bottom.  If the message
or my
> >reply is complex, I insert my reply points into the
message
> >I'm replying to.  In most cases (for example, this
one) that
> >isn't necessary.  I've never seen a case where
putting my
> >reply completely below the message I'm replying to
served any
> >useful purpose.  Which isn't to say it doesn't work
for you,
> >just that it's incorrect to imply that anyone who
doesn't use
> >a screen reader will prefer bottom-posting.
> 
> I acknowledge that some people prefer top-posting, but
generally I feel 
> that that is due to laziness rather than any real
benefit gained by 
> top-posting.
> 
> In any case, it should be clear that it is easier to
change software than 
> to alter human behavior.  An option to "ignore
quoted text" or "read quoted 
> text last" should be trivial to add to a screen
reader; in fact, if 
> interspersed-quoting is a problem for those using
screen readers, I'm 
> surprised it hasn't been done already.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.

<quote author="jon kuroda">
Obviously what we need is QML, the Quoting Markup Language,
based on XML 
...
Only half-joking,
Jon
</quote>

Both highly humorous(well, I laughed), and a seriously good
idea.  Write 
up a spec, promote it on a combined O'Reilly forum and ADA
compliance 
platform, and you really might have something there. 

-- 
Jay Bryon
Senior Network Engineer, IST-IS-NSO 
(Network artists formerly known as CNS)
U.C. Berkeley

jayberkeley.edu
2-5636

[Unless stated explicitly otherwise, all opinions are my own
and do not represent official policy of any part of IST,
U.C. Berkeley or the U.C. Regents.]  



------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.

For the benefit of the MUA-impaired, I'll top-post.

First of all, I'll second what Tom said. And add some:

Email has been around for a bit and certain conventions
(which normal MUAs
know) have come to be standard practice. Similar conventions
exist(ed) on
FIDO and whatnot. If one were to make a new MUA, one should
figure out how
to deal with existing conventions, IMHO. Which also means
that if you happen
to use an MUA that fails to present normal '>' quoted
text or a signature
after a "--" in a reasonable way, I suggest you
stop using that MUA and find
a better one that does it right. Or, of course, write your
own.

Asking the world to change around broken implementations
sounds rather...
"imperfect" to me. For any change, there has to be
a good reason why the old
way was broken or why the new way is so much better. And
such reason is to
apply to everybody or a vast majority. That is, a mere
"green text looks
better in my MUA and I like it" is not a reason to ask
for every MUA to do
just that.

I find that skipping quoted text when reading replies is
very easy. For me,
it's in different colors (and if it's doubly-quoted text,
it'd be in yet
another color). It is, however, very nice to be able to look
immediately up
and see what the comment was referring to. Granted, in many
of my emails
there are multiple issues being addressed, so keeping the
context consistent
is a rather proper thing to do. This is, of course, only due
to me having a
rather incapable brain: I need technology to help me
remember the details of
conversations if those conversations begin to stretch in
time. "Ed is for
those who can *remember* what they are working on.  If you
are an idiot, you
should use Emacs."

As for annoyances in email, I personally find other things
much more
annoying: whole paragraphs as single lines, HTML email when
there's no need
for formatting. Annoying, but I can compensate for those. At
least it aint a
word document. Some things are harder to compensate for:
people who can't
spell or form grammatically correct sentences in the
language of their
choosing. If the sender doesn't care to express things in an
actual
language, why should the recipient bother to read?

I do partially agree with Jan in a sense that if the
response is not a
logical continuation of the existing message, it is probably
better left as
a top-post. E.g. say somebody sends me a description of
their problem, which
I am not going to do anything about, but rather just forward
to the right
person. In this case, my (somewhat out-of-band) reply would
be a top-post
(something like "Please contact <foo> (CCed on
this message) for these
problems")

Vadim.

[I don't know whether broken MUAs can handle In-Reply-To:
header right, so
I'll leave most of the original message below]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:32:57AM -0800, Tom Holub wrote:
> Jan Pardoe wrote:
> >I, on the other hand, don't use a screen reader and
still find
> >bottom-posting annoying and a waste of my time. 
when I've been
> >reading the whole thread and I know what the person
before
> >said, what I want now is to see the reply.  It's
not helpful
> >to have to wade through the previous message again
in order
> >to get at the new information.
> 
> Here, I will intersperse, because there are two points
which I want to 
> respond to separately.
> 
> Look at your paragraph; it begins with "I, on the
other hand..."  What 
> other hand?  It's not clear at all what you're
responding to, because the 
> comment you're responding to is below your text, rather
than above it as it 
> would be in any other reading context.  While I enjoyed
both the movie 
> "Memento" and the backwards Seinfeld episode,
I find English text quite a 
> bit easier to read when it is presented linearly.
> 
> (Also, in this particular case, my message ended with a
question about why 
> screen readers can't figure out the difference between
quoted and 
> non-quoted text, which is not what your "I, on the
other hand..." is 
> responding to).
> 
> >When I reply, I edit the message to remove
unnecessary
> >previous messages from the bottom.  If the message
or my
> >reply is complex, I insert my reply points into the
message
> >I'm replying to.  In most cases (for example, this
one) that
> >isn't necessary.  I've never seen a case where
putting my
> >reply completely below the message I'm replying to
served any
> >useful purpose.  Which isn't to say it doesn't work
for you,
> >just that it's incorrect to imply that anyone who
doesn't use
> >a screen reader will prefer bottom-posting.
> 
> I acknowledge that some people prefer top-posting, but
generally I feel 
> that that is due to laziness rather than any real
benefit gained by 
> top-posting.
> 
> In any case, it should be clear that it is easier to
change software than 
> to alter human behavior.  An option to "ignore
quoted text" or "read quoted 
> text last" should be trivial to add to a screen
reader; in fact, if 
> interspersed-quoting is a problem for those using
screen readers, I'm 
> surprised it hasn't been done already.

To be somewhat contrary:

Now that many of us can--and do--listen to our email
messages over  
the phone (thanks to UniBears' Unified Messaging
capability--see  
http://unibears.berkeley.edu/cs/service/services-de
sc.html#um), it's  
a real pain if a whole message is quoted with the reply
interspersed  
or at the bottom.  Not only is it tiresome to have to listen
through  
the same content repeatedly, but there's really no good way
(that I  
know of) to indicate quoted text via an audio interface.  (I
DO know  
that the "listen to email" feature on UniBears
doesn't distinguish  
between quoted and non-quoted text, at least.)

Ian

On Nov 16, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Vadim Kogan wrote:

> For the benefit of the MUA-impaired, I'll top-post.
>
> First of all, I'll second what Tom said. And add some:
>
> Email has been around for a bit and certain conventions
(which  
> normal MUAs
> know) have come to be standard practice. Similar
conventions exist 
> (ed) on
> FIDO and whatnot. If one were to make a new MUA, one
should figure  
> out how
> to deal with existing conventions, IMHO. Which also
means that if  
> you happen
> to use an MUA that fails to present normal '>'
quoted text or a  
> signature
> after a "--" in a reasonable way, I suggest
you stop using that MUA  
> and find
> a better one that does it right. Or, of course, write
your own.
>
> Asking the world to change around broken
implementations sounds  
> rather...
> "imperfect" to me. For any change, there has
to be a good reason  
> why the old
> way was broken or why the new way is so much better.
And such  
> reason is to
> apply to everybody or a vast majority. That is, a mere
"green text  
> looks
> better in my MUA and I like it" is not a reason to
ask for every  
> MUA to do
> just that.
>
> I find that skipping quoted text when reading replies
is very easy.  
> For me,
> it's in different colors (and if it's doubly-quoted
text, it'd be  
> in yet
> another color). It is, however, very nice to be able to
look  
> immediately up
> and see what the comment was referring to. Granted, in
many of my  
> emails
> there are multiple issues being addressed, so keeping
the context  
> consistent
> is a rather proper thing to do. This is, of course,
only due to me  
> having a
> rather incapable brain: I need technology to help me
remember the  
> details of
> conversations if those conversations begin to stretch
in time. "Ed  
> is for
> those who can *remember* what they are working on.  If
you are an  
> idiot, you
> should use Emacs."
>
> As for annoyances in email, I personally find other
things much more
> annoying: whole paragraphs as single lines, HTML email
when there's  
> no need
> for formatting. Annoying, but I can compensate for
those. At least  
> it aint a
> word document. Some things are harder to compensate
for: people who  
> can't
> spell or form grammatically correct sentences in the
language of their
> choosing. If the sender doesn't care to express things
in an actual
> language, why should the recipient bother to read?
>
> I do partially agree with Jan in a sense that if the
response is not a
> logical continuation of the existing message, it is
probably better  
> left as
> a top-post. E.g. say somebody sends me a description of
their  
> problem, which
> I am not going to do anything about, but rather just
forward to the  
> right
> person. In this case, my (somewhat out-of-band) reply
would be a  
> top-post
> (something like "Please contact <foo> (CCed
on this message) for these
> problems")
>
> Vadim.
>
> [I don't know whether broken MUAs can handle
In-Reply-To: header  
> right, so
> I'll leave most of the original message below]
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:32:57AM -0800, Tom Holub
wrote:
>> Jan Pardoe wrote:
>>> I, on the other hand, don't use a screen reader
and still find
>>> bottom-posting annoying and a waste of my time.
 when I've been
>>> reading the whole thread and I know what the
person before
>>> said, what I want now is to see the reply. 
It's not helpful
>>> to have to wade through the previous message
again in order
>>> to get at the new information.
>>
>> Here, I will intersperse, because there are two
points which I  
>> want to
>> respond to separately.
>>
>> Look at your paragraph; it begins with "I, on
the other hand..."   
>> What
>> other hand?  It's not clear at all what you're
responding to,  
>> because the
>> comment you're responding to is below your text,
rather than above  
>> it as it
>> would be in any other reading context.  While I
enjoyed both the  
>> movie
>> "Memento" and the backwards Seinfeld
episode, I find English text  
>> quite a
>> bit easier to read when it is presented linearly.
>>
>> (Also, in this particular case, my message ended
with a question  
>> about why
>> screen readers can't figure out the difference
between quoted and
>> non-quoted text, which is not what your "I, on
the other hand..." is
>> responding to).
>>
>>> When I reply, I edit the message to remove
unnecessary
>>> previous messages from the bottom.  If the
message or my
>>> reply is complex, I insert my reply points into
the message
>>> I'm replying to.  In most cases (for example,
this one) that
>>> isn't necessary.  I've never seen a case where
putting my
>>> reply completely below the message I'm replying
to served any
>>> useful purpose.  Which isn't to say it doesn't
work for you,
>>> just that it's incorrect to imply that anyone
who doesn't use
>>> a screen reader will prefer bottom-posting.
>>
>> I acknowledge that some people prefer top-posting,
but generally I  
>> feel
>> that that is due to laziness rather than any real
benefit gained by
>> top-posting.
>>
>> In any case, it should be clear that it is easier
to change  
>> software than
>> to alter human behavior.  An option to "ignore
quoted text" or  
>> "read quoted
>> text last" should be trivial to add to a
screen reader; in fact, if
>> interspersed-quoting is a problem for those using
screen readers, I'm
>> surprised it hasn't been done already.


------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of
conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

I agree that screen readers that can't navigate the normal
flow  of  
properly quoted  discussion threads need  fixing. Context is
everything.

- Scot

--
Scot Hacker, Webmaster
Graduate School of Journalism
UC Berkeley
http://journalism.berk
eley.edu




------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.

At 1:52 PM -0800 11/16/06, Vadim Kogan wrote:

>For the benefit of the MUA-impaired, I'll top-post.
>
>First of all, I'll second what Tom said. And add some:
...snip...

What did Tom say? 

Best,
Mikael

------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.

I have never had a conversation where each person repeats
everything 
said before them and then adds their own.  I guess we move
in 
different social circles....


At 2:20 PM -0800 11/16/06, Scot Hacker wrote:
>A: Yes.
>>Q: Are you sure?
>>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of
conversation.
>>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>


Randall

------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Although not a complete 'solution', I think a few 'best
practices' might 
help a little to deal with the problems that have been
raised in this 
discussion.

1.  Try not to include the entire prior discussion in each
reply. That 
annoys me even more than most top posting (which I don't
like either).

2.  Yet, occasionally top posting is reasonable, if you need
to quote a 
long comment, for reference, but just want to make one
straightforward 
reply to the whole thing.  In that case, the quoted material
doesn't have 
to be read first.

3.  Most of the time, however, include only the minimum text
from earlier 
postings that is necessary to allow your reply to make
sense.  If you 
follow this guideline, then even interspersing your comments
with the text 
to which you are replying should be less of a problem.

4.  If possible, as I'm doing here, don't quote any of the
prior 
discussion if the point you're making stands alone, assuming
that your 
intended audience has at least seen the earlier postings. 
Sometimes, on a 
general purpose list, it's not really necessary to bring
every new reader 
up to date.

The underlying premise here is that communication among
humans should be a 
thoughtful activity, not a reflex action.  I know it's often
easier and 
quicker just to add your two cents worth of contribution to
an accumulated 
prior discussion and then heave the entire mess back over
the wall (hoping 
that the sheer weight of it all doesn't injure someone on
the other side). 
Likely as not, you'll then be rewarded with an even larger
package in 
response, now including someone else's precious additions,
until 
eventually you have something akin to a chain letter, but
without the 
virtue of redemption from doom.

Mike

____________________________________________________________
_____________
Mike Friedman                        IST/System and Network
Security
mikefack.Berkeley.EDU               2484 Shattuck Avenue
1-510-642-1410                       University of
California at Berkeley
http://socrates.b
erkeley.edu/~mikef  http://security.berkeley
.edu
____________________________________________________________
_____________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBRVzzy60bf1iNr4mCEQKMdwCgibecdmtWJLxBjilYgEA9Vz/kfzsA
n12z
rLEFQ5hIf/+sY+5EoCoKxaoD
=cLPe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------------------------------------
------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the
list server:

For information about Micronet, including subscribing to
or unsubscribing from its mailing list and finding out
about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
<http://micronet.be
rkeley.edu/>.