harnad@clarity.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (06/28/91)
Subject: Full-text Mail Editors and Tables of Contents Many responses were received to the screen scrolling question. Here they are, with some annotations. The upshot is that we will prepend a full table of contents before each issue and precede each subitem heading within a bundled module by a unique number and special character. Some of the screen editing solutions are not yet satisfactory, though I continue to believe that those who look, will find. -- ed. --------------------------- > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 09:11 MST > From: SPETERSON@CCNODE%VAXF.Colorado.EDU > > I share Jack Hailman's concern about scanning capability. I, too, have > to read everything screen by screen, which, as he noted, is sometimes > unhandy when what I'm interested in is a later entry that follows > lengthy earlier entries. If this problem is solvable, I think it might > save a lot of us some time in reading the information we get. Thanks. Please look into full screen mail editing capabilities on your system. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 11:18:16 EDT > From: Roger D Nelson <rdnelson@phoenix> > > Using an editor is surely possible in any system. It may be useful to > send out a page of suggestions for using the service efficiently, along > the lines of the netnews instruction modules. A line of instruction > could even be included in headers; if clever it could be direct, > otherwise give a path to instructions. In any case, I agree that > changes in the system should reflect the more generous possibilities of > the future -- no dumbing down, please. Roger Unfortunately there are too many different systems for PSYCOLOQUY to be the source of all the pertinent information. All we can do is encourage users to inquire about the much more powerful features that are available on most systems than the "vanilla" version that new users first learn. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 12:22 -0300 > From: "JEROME H. BARKOW" <BARKOW@AC.DAL.CA> > > I'm with Hailman. I have to scroll screen-by-screen. Since this is > impossible, given limits on my time, I send everything to the batch > printer so that I can eventually skim at leisure. But this path > obviates the benefits of electronic communication. Jerry Printing it out certainly defeats some of the purpose of an electronic journal. I encourage you instead to spend a little time with someone who is more expert in your mailer's software so he can teach you the relevant tricks. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 11:28:29 -0400 > From: psrjsrs@prism.gatech.edu (Ray Shaw) > > There were three remarks in this note that struck me as worth > commenting on: > > 1. (From Jack Hailman) > > > ... So I have to admit to > > deleting entire long transmissions after reading the first screen. It > > is critical that the first screen give contents and their lengths. > > Dividing things up into many smaller messages helps me scan things a > > lot, as I can simply delete what I don't want to read. But if something > > is buried as the 10th entry in a long message, I have to get to it > > screen-by-screen in order to read it. You may want to keep this sort of > > constraint in mind while continuing to evolve formats for email > > transmissions. > > I agree with him completely on this. I use unix, and *could* evoke an > editor and all that, but it is a pain to do so. It would be *much* > easier to look at individual messages, even if it did mean a lot more > e-mail messages in my 'reader list'/'mail box'. I completely disagree. I use Unix and much prefer invoking the editor (by simply typing e) to jump to each of the headers that looks interesting at the beginning of the message. This seems much more efficient than having each item as a separate mail message, each having to be dumped individually. For one thing, with items bundled by topic, as the PSYCOLOQUY subscribership voted ovewhelmingly to do last year, I can skip all 10 employment notices with one key stroke. Your way would require 10 keystrokes... (I believe the Unix philosophy is that life is just a finite number of keystrokes, so let's not use up any of it unnecessarily...) > 2. From Stevan Harnad. There are two statements: > > >It's probably not a good idea to scale down our format to the resources > >of the least powerful viewing system. > > > ... I suppose (though I'm > >not sure) that Bitnet/VMS/CMS has similar capability. > > In the early days of PC's (early to mid 80's), any programmer who > agreed with the first statement would not be writing software for the > majority of the market. WordPerfect is *still* capable of running in > 640K and on floppies, though by your argument, it should only be > available for those with 2 MB RAM and a hard drive (like Windows, and > look how well that's catching on even with all the hype!). > > Since there are so many different systems, any universal system has to > be available on the least common denominator, or it is functionally > unavailable to some. That seems to defeat your purpose. > > The second comment only strengthens my point -- you don't seem to care > if some users are inconvenienced. PSYCOLOQUY is not a piece of software targeted for the mass market, it is a scholarly journal. Software can be upgraded subsumptively, whereas we have to settle on the one solution that is most convenient for most users. Bundling in digests format seems to be that solution. > 3. Also by Harnad > > > ... (Bigger modules dedicated to easily skipped categories were > >in any case voted in by the subscribership last year.) > > If majority rule were truly appropriate here, then the >640K,hard drive > system would probably win the vote in software development, too, and > then what would happen to all those with less? on the other hand, > always in favor of democracy,... > > I would assume that the subscribership has grown -- perhaps it is > time for a re-vote? I would favor one (obviously, I would prefer each > message to be a separate mailing :-). Cheers, Ray Shaw Again, this is not software marketing, it is the design of one uniform format for the PSYCOLOQUY readership. We may vote again on this some time, but for now I think the yea's still have it... > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 13:11:43 EDT > From: FAC_ASKAHN@VAX2.ACS.JMU.EDU (Arnie Kahn) > > I think you are right. Most people do not understand the capability > of their computer system. Arnie > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 12:54 CDT > From: <B1H6017@TAMSIGMA.BITNET> > > For your information, vax users can also save files from the mail > utility to a file. The user should have their mail system read the > first page of the message they wish to dump to a file and then type > EXTRACT FILENAME. They can then use their normal editor to read the > file. Betty Harris Texas A&M Saving to a file and then invoking the editor may be preferable to scrolling in a dumb editor, but invoking a smart editor right in the mailer is surely the best of all. One stroke is better than two (for all folks). > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 10:57 PDT > From: Vicki Fromkin <IYO1VAF@UCLAMVS.BITNET> > > Unfortunately, BITNET has no such capability. Must scan screen by > screen -- or maybe it is just the UCLA editor which is terrible. VAF Yes it does, as you see above and below. But so far I have heard only about a line editor that can be invoked in the mailer. Surely there's a full-screen editor too. (Anyone...?_) > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 13:55:32 EDT > From: "Karl L. Wuensch" <PSWUENSC@ECUVM1.BITNET> > > Yes, indeed, those of us with CMS systems and Xedit-like mailers (like the > Rice mailer) can use LOCATE/pattern/ to skip to the desired text, as long > as you all provide such unique patterns marking off the various sections of > a long piece of email. I will ask the Assistant Editor, Malcolm Bauer, to work out an easily locatable, unique pattern that is not too unsightly. > Date: 27 Jun 91 14:14 EDT > From: <NERVIANO.VINCENT@FORUM.VA.GOV> > > I appreciate being able to get the documents at all, given that I am > doing it on a remote terminal through a gateway through the VA FORUM. I > don't think the MailMan in DHCP has any of the features that would > permit the kind of search. I can't hardcopy withough importing the text > to my station mainframe, and that would really tie up the lines. When > it got here, it would tie up my printer too! If I was on a PC with > procomm I guess I could same the file and navigate with something like > Qedit. I have no way of knowing how many VA only access folks you > have, but this is the constraints I happen to be under. I realize the > network was set up for world-wide academic sharing. Just for your info > and thanks again for the subscription! > > Well maybe a search function on the DHCP edit on FORUM would do the > same. Never occured to me! Also if/when Letterman wordprocessing > is incorporated as the Mailman editor, it might work out better!! > Will see! BYE (from Wilkes-Barre, PA) Sounds like there's some hope here. Certainly downloading and printing are the worst possible solutions. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 11:51:30 PDT > From: kluender@cogsci.UCSD.EDU%UCSD.EDU%Sdsc.BITnet (Robert Kluender) > > i'm also on the linguists net, and there the editors give a table of > contents at the beginning of each edition which allows one to decide > whether or not it's deletable. this would of course be more work for > you, but more user-friendly for us. or maybe i have missed the point of > this whole discussion. by the way, i tried to unsubscribe yesterday and > was told that i'm not listed. however none of the proffered possible > reasons for this anomaly seem to pertain in my case. We will henceforth precede each issue of PSYCOLOQUY with a table of contents. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 13:55 CDT > From: "Jack P. Hailman" <JHAILMAN@WISCMACC.BITNET> > > I tried the procedure suggested by Mort Isaacs, and in our system > (which is a VAX/VMS with EDT) that command brings up the message one > LINE at a time--a monster step backward in dealing with this problem. I > have a query into our consulting office as to how to deal with this > problem on our system, but as yet have no reply. > Jack P. Hailman Univ. of Wisconsin I am fairly confident that a full-screen mail editor must exist too. Please let us know what you find out. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 16:10:58 ADT > From: HUNT000 <HUNT@UNB.CA> > > Some ejournals put in easily locatable keys to sections, so you can go > directly there from the listing at the top -- for instance, section > numbers encased in asterisks -- ***4***, maybe. If I only want to read > those sections, I just tell my local editor to locate the right > strings. Do most machines have that capability? > Russell A. Hunt Department of English St. Thomas University Assistant Editor Malcolm Bauer will work out a format, but a less ugly one than that, I hope! > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 16:17 CDT > From: SSILVERN@AUDUCVAX.BITNET > > Read/edit is a less than elegant method for scanning text. Sure, you > can find your text string quickly, but the draw back is that you can > only scroll line-by-line (even in full screen edit). Such "solutions" > should not get in the way of user-friendly solutions. The editors > should consider options that allow for easy access to text. Perhaps a > file that contains a directory of the digest--then readers may select > smaller chunks based on the directory. > Steven Silvern Auburn University Directory will be supplied. And what's needed, obviously, is a full screen editor that can scroll screen by screen as well as jumping ahead to a pattern string (like emacs and vi in unix). Stevan Harnad