MBOX-Line: From joel+imap-protocol at panacea.null.org  Tue Dec 29 22:51:49 2009
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Joel Reicher <joel+imap-protocol@panacea.null.org>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:43 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Childless noselect mailboxes
In-Reply-To: <Gophermail.2.0.0912291824540.21747@vs-w.tc.umn.edu>
References: <1262106049.26478.745.camel@timo-desktop>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.0912290938230.18442@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<1262111858.26478.842.camel@timo-desktop>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.0912291042070.18442@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<1262114250.26478.864.camel@timo-desktop>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.0912291425140.18442@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<Gophermail.2.0.0912291824540.21747@vs-w.tc.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <3687.1262155909@succubus.panacea.null.org>

Brian Hayden writes:
> Sorry if I was unclear. As noted I wasn't talking about the creation 
> action, but the concept of \NoSelect itself. I can't think of any object in 
> any interface that the average person uses which has an analogue (except, 
> obviously, for the ones of concern here--"directories" in mail clients 
> which are either connecting to an IMAP server with a single-use mailbox 
> format, or which hard-code a single-use view of the world).
> 
> A directory in Windows, OS X, or most of the Linux desktop environments 
> (for example) is "selectable",

That depends on what you mean by "select". In a file browser it usually
means merely changing some context and listings. I don't think that's
analogous to IMAP "select"; opening an actual file is the analogous
operation, and you can't open a directory in this way.

My theory is that we have two competing models. The first, which is
Mark's if I've understood him correctly, is that selectable mailboxes are
"files". The second, which I suspect might be common amongst users, is that
messages are "files", and so the distinction between selectable and
unselectable mailboxes loses its most obvious analogy.

> both conceptually and in IMAP terms--because 
> it is "dual-use". If the idea of a non-selectable object is foreign to the 
> very large majority of users then it would follow that the details of its 
> creation/use/destruction would then also not have a ready mental map. But 
> to get at the root a client designer might want to tackle creating a 
> meaningful mental model of \NoSelect.

I think the only mental model which works is a tree. If messages are
the leaves, selectability of mailboxes seems weird because there's no
obvious reason why some arbitrary node can't have leaves attached to it.

On the other hand if selectable mailboxes are leaves then dual-use
mailboxes are difficult to understand. In fact dual-use mailboxes might
have encouraged, and not just allowed, the alternative model.

I would like to suggest that the kind of "one message can be in multiple
mailboxes" idea gmail is doing with "labels" might resolve the confusion,
but then there's the distinction between mailboxes and flags...

Cheers,

	- Joel

