D
D. Turnipseed
Outlook 2003 currently archives according to the modified date of items,
which flies in the face of average user logic. Imagine -- you are the end
user. Here you are trying to archive items older than a certain date and
finding that the items you expect to be archived are not being archived. You
look at the dates (received dates are the most visible, and seemingly the
most logical dates to use your subconscious tells you), and you look at your
archive criteria. "Certainly those items should be archived," you think to
yourself. You wonder how this can be, and it's not until you waste your time
reading through troubleshooting articles that you find that Outlook 2003
archives items based on their modified date -- a property that you can
neither see nor modify by default. You, on the other hand, would expect the
archive process to use properties that you can actually see, like the
received date, which is the property that each person I have talked to would
have expected to be used.
I can understand the thinking that went into the design of this feature,
wanting to make it easy for users to retain access to the items that they use
most often makes sense in theory, but practically it makes the archive
process difficult to use because the modified date is not a criteria that the
typical user is accustomed to dealing with.
This is a case of doing too much thinking for the end user and not offering
them enough choice to take matters into their own hands if assumptions about
their intentions prove to be incorrect - a flaw in design philosophy that has
frustrated many a user. True, we do like things to be simple, but when
efforts to simplify things prevent us from reaching our goals, we like to
have the opportunity to use the software to say, "No...thank you, but this is
what I want to do."
As a remedy to this problem, I would propose another element to the archive
settings dialog. Add a section that says, "Items are currently archived
according to their modified date. If you would like to archive items
according to the date they were received, select the 'received date' option."
This should be at a minimum. Ideally, you might offer more criteria as a
whole.
I should point out that the rules suffer from this same philosophy. I would
like to see them (and possibly the archive feature) merged with the advanced
search criteria, so that you can set detailed search criteria and then have
your specific rule executed with the click of a button (or automatically if
you're daring).
I hope this feedback helps with the design of your applications. I
understand that software development is not an easy undertaking, and I
certainly do appreciate the products that the Microsoft team has produced.
They have allowed me to accomplish a great many things that I didn't even
know were possible. In fact, you might say that this whole criticism is your
fault. You've given me such great products to work with that my expectations
have been raised to an infinitely high level.
Thank you...
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...b8a991f62&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general
which flies in the face of average user logic. Imagine -- you are the end
user. Here you are trying to archive items older than a certain date and
finding that the items you expect to be archived are not being archived. You
look at the dates (received dates are the most visible, and seemingly the
most logical dates to use your subconscious tells you), and you look at your
archive criteria. "Certainly those items should be archived," you think to
yourself. You wonder how this can be, and it's not until you waste your time
reading through troubleshooting articles that you find that Outlook 2003
archives items based on their modified date -- a property that you can
neither see nor modify by default. You, on the other hand, would expect the
archive process to use properties that you can actually see, like the
received date, which is the property that each person I have talked to would
have expected to be used.
I can understand the thinking that went into the design of this feature,
wanting to make it easy for users to retain access to the items that they use
most often makes sense in theory, but practically it makes the archive
process difficult to use because the modified date is not a criteria that the
typical user is accustomed to dealing with.
This is a case of doing too much thinking for the end user and not offering
them enough choice to take matters into their own hands if assumptions about
their intentions prove to be incorrect - a flaw in design philosophy that has
frustrated many a user. True, we do like things to be simple, but when
efforts to simplify things prevent us from reaching our goals, we like to
have the opportunity to use the software to say, "No...thank you, but this is
what I want to do."
As a remedy to this problem, I would propose another element to the archive
settings dialog. Add a section that says, "Items are currently archived
according to their modified date. If you would like to archive items
according to the date they were received, select the 'received date' option."
This should be at a minimum. Ideally, you might offer more criteria as a
whole.
I should point out that the rules suffer from this same philosophy. I would
like to see them (and possibly the archive feature) merged with the advanced
search criteria, so that you can set detailed search criteria and then have
your specific rule executed with the click of a button (or automatically if
you're daring).
I hope this feedback helps with the design of your applications. I
understand that software development is not an easy undertaking, and I
certainly do appreciate the products that the Microsoft team has produced.
They have allowed me to accomplish a great many things that I didn't even
know were possible. In fact, you might say that this whole criticism is your
fault. You've given me such great products to work with that my expectations
have been raised to an infinitely high level.
Thank you...
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...b8a991f62&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general