embrace and extend...

Helge Hess wrote:

> BTW: "ideas" are probably more a topic for the discuss mailing list ...
>
> On Freitag, 18. Juli 2003, at 13:18 Uhr, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>>> I would also like to have a UI which looks as much as Outlook as 
>>> allowed/possible. If it looks different, a lot of users will reject it.
>>
>>
>> Maybe some/many seasoned Outlook users will reject it, but that need 
>> not mean that everybody will. I have a large group of users here who 
>> have never used, seen, nor quite likely heard of Outlook - but we're 
>> getting to the point where we need some groupware functionality.  
>> Whatever is selected, they won't care if it's like Outlook, only if 
>> it's well designed, easy to use, and consistent with the rest of the 
>> environment.
>
>
> I think there some basic groups:
> a) Notes users
> b) Outlook users
> c) some other Groupware users
> d) users which used no GW before
>
> b) and c) are focus. d) is somewhat automatic and a) is only really 
> used in large organisations and even there more and more replaced with 
> Outlook/Exchange for various reasons (say 1970 UI ;-).
>
> I have the strong opinion that "looks-like-Outlook" is very important 
> (based on customer experience ;-).
>
>> Is Outlook's UI design acutually sufficiently good that it is a model 
>> to be followed, or is it just the one the users are used to?
>
>
> The latter. But Outlook isn't IMHO particulary bad on a UI perspective 
> either (there are some things which are really forbidden in UI, like 3 
> nested modal panels). But the annoying pieces are more in the 
> implementation.
>
>> I'd think the priority would be to keep the UI of a mozilla groupware 
>> client consistent with the rest of Mozilla. Users will whine, but can 
>> learn to use new things - and often find they like them more in the end.
>
>
> I disagree. We don't want whining users, we want happy users ;-)
>
>> I'm not saying your wrong, only that personally I don't think 
>> "because that's the way it is in Outlook" is a good guiding reason 
>> for a decision.
>
>
> That's not what I'm saying. I say "because the target group wants 
> Outlook", it's not a decision of me ;-) I don't think that Outlook is 
> from a technical perspective a particulary good guide.
>
>> If you're looking for a real outlook clone, perhaps you might add to 
>> the crowd asking Ximian for a Windows port of Evolution?
>
>
> That won't happen any time soon, Evolution is a GNOME app and quite 
> tied to Unix(tm) like environments.
>
>>> Eg it should show contact, calendar and task folders in the left 
>>> tree of Mozilla mail.
>>
>> IMHO that's potentially very clumsy, at least when you have very 
>> large mail trees (IMAP, many mailing lists). Perhaps tabs, in the 
>> style of the browser sidebar? Just and idea.
>
>
> Again, the reason is not that OL UI is good, but that it is used by 
> the "customers". And few companies will switch if they need to train 
> their 500 employes to get used to xxx-client.
>
> Step A: get like Outlook
> Step B: embrace and extend ;-)
>
> regards,
>   Helge

I can only concur wholeheartedly.

My due dilligence and research has shown that outlook and related 
licenses are perceived as the
cost of doing business.

Not only do we have to ensure that investments in training are 
preserved, but we have to better in
a significant way the features of our monopolistic competition.

Stability, scalability and security's foremost in the developer's and IT 
decision maker's mind,
but any costs to retrain and per seat 'whining' will be a deal breaker 
90% of the time.
You won't get an executive to listen to one word if you sentence begins 
with 'well, the leearning curve is..."

The meeting is over before you can get to the total cost of ownrtship 
and other extremely compelling tidbits.

Reality really does sometimes bite.

kg