Re: next unread mesage, newest or oldest?

On Saturday April 10 2010 23:50:59 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Saturday 10 April 2010, Dj YB wrote:
> > On Saturday April 10 2010 21:07:33 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 April 2010, Dj YB wrote:
> > > > On Saturday April 10 2010 17:42:29 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > > > Or is the problem that newer threads are read before older
> > > > > threads? Is this really a problem? Usually, different threads
> > > > > are unrelated so it shouldn't really matter in which order you
> > > > > read them.
> > > > 
> > > > that is not a problem for me.
> > > > 
> > > > > > I think a way to "fix" (as I am not sure what was the
> > > > > > original goal) this is to look by thread date (if there is
> > > > > > such a thing)...
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't think making "next unread message" jump seemingly
> > > > > randomly from message to message would be very user friendly.
> > > > 
> > > > it shouldn't be random the messages are ordered (when not
> > > > threaded) by date only descending and not ascending.
> > > 
> > > So you suggest that "next unread message" should move upwards when
> > > the messages are sorted newest first? I think this is almost a
> > > philosophical question. Does "next" mean "next in time" or "next
> > > in place"? Should "next" always move up if the sort order is
> > > descending and move down if the sort order is ascending (i.e. also
> > > if one sorts by subject)?
> > 
> > I only think that next unread is the next first(oldest) unread
> > message/(thread).
> > it just seems more natural to read messages in the order they arrived
> > I think.
> > 
> > > I don't think that making the meaning of "next" depend on the sort
> > > order is a good idea.
> > 
> > but it is right now, try sorting by sender or anything not the date
> > then do a "next unread message" and watch the scrollbar and the
> > dates, is it jumping according to the date or the position in the
> > list?
> 
> The position. It jumps to the next unread message below the current
> message.
> 
is it a bug then or was that the intended behavior?

regards,
YB.