<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 12/12/2016 21:29, R Kent James wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5796e8a5-02fb-fa06-47f4-ab1be2af4305@caspia.com"
type="cite"> Another thing that scares me is that we really don't
have a good idea why our existing users choose Thunderbird. With
the direction that FF is moving, TB is going to have to change in
some ways, and there is a serious risk that we will change in ways
that alienate our users if we don't understand them that well.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree that understanding what users really need and/or want is
critical. It's never easy to get this kind of feedback, not least
because many people cannot express what they really want.<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, I've introduced many people to Thunderbird,
most of them non-technical end users. Here are my observations of
their needs:<br>
<br>
(1) Above all else, stability. Don't break it. New UI or
functionality changes must be either optional for existing users or
must be easy to back out of for existing users. Note that this does
not prevent innovation or changes: New or changed UI and/or
functionality can be enabled by default for new users. Remember that
success means not only that you attract new users but that you
retain existing users.<br>
<br>
(2) Flexibility. In a way, this is a feature that appeals to me but
it is also why I recommend TB to my clients. Apart from TB's own
settings, "flexibility" means addons. I cannot over-emphasise the
importance of addons. This also feeds back to point 1 above: Don't
break addons. Stability in addon compatibility matters as much as
stability in Thunderbird's own UI and features. Non-technical users
don't know the difference and don't care -- it just has to work.
Thunderbird is to a great extent its addons.<br>
<br>
(3) Simplicity. When people mention "simplicity" they often think
about UIs but simplicity in overall structure and design is
important too. For example, keeping the main data in easily parsable
text files is a key benefit. In a way this is a feature I want but
it also feeds into how much I am likely to recommend TB. Note that
this kind of simplicity does not mean that one could not use a
database for indexes and so on (and there's no reason to not use a
database for fts, as at present). But plain text files from which
the entire data structure can be rebuilt are a key benefit.<br>
<br>
On 12/12/2016 08:28, R Kent James wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:46a0edef-0cee-ff2e-a16f-f5698c1830be@caspia.com"
type="cite">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">I do see that Thunderbird though has three fundamental options to
consider. 1) Continue our traditional path of being a binary rebuild of
Firefox, which means probably moving toward Rust and custom
WebExtensions or WebIDL features, 2) Move Thunderbird clearly into the
an app category using web technologies, or 3) pick an entirely different
binary platform to run on, like QT or .NET core. Of these three choices,
I think that 2) is the path we are mostly looking at.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It seems to me that none of these options is a good option
stability. Is forking Gecko and sticking with a XUL/XPCOM base any
more work than options 2 or 3 would be anyway? I am quite certain
that Thunderbird dies if its existing addon infrastructure dies, at
least not without there being an equally capable migration path
(which, I admit, does seem least difficult with option 2).<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Rousell
</pre>
</body>
</html>