3 ms·

This is about what happened in the 70s, so 80s-onward experience is not relevant. I think he also feels his work is not appreciated by the establishment. In al

This is about what happened in the 70s, so 80s-onward experience is not relevant. I think he also feels his work is not appreciated by the establishment. In all of this I don't see many people really examining how his system worked and what problems it solved. They're very focused on arguing that this or that piece existed earlier, so he has no claim. Part of it is his fault for laying claim to such a grandiose title. But I'm also feeling there is a typical lack of appreciation among his critics for what we would now call UX work, i.e. making a usable system.

eesmith 9y ago
I don't think I made my point clearly enough. Was I, in the 1980s and 1990s, using email, when I didn't use a system which has the features that he says are required to be called "email"? If I wasn't using email, then he's using a definition which is highly idiosyncratic. If I was using email, then people before him, in the 1970s, were using email. More specifically, which feature finally made a simple text mail client like BSD Mail become "email". The concept "usable" is effectively meaningless. You can always change the threshold. Gmail is far more usable than his system was.
- abalone 9y ago
  > The concept "usable" is effectively meaningless. I mean come on, that can't be true. You've just invalidated the whole field of UX and perhaps the most defining aspect of breakthrough products. Yes, it's hard to define and up to debate. That's why there's a debate. But it doesn't help to say, we can't talk about it, only concrete primitives. As to his definition of email, I think you're mixing up his program's specific feature list (printing, relational DB, etc.) with his definition, which is more general. Having said that I do think it's a bit too strong to require 100% compliance to his definition, like requiring an address book.[1] Having said that, when we compare that list to what was available in 1978 it's much starker how advanced it was (assuming it actually worked). [1] http://www.inventorofemail.com/definition_of_email.asp http://www.inventorofemail.com/definition_of_email.asp
  - eesmith 9y ago
    "Effectively meaningless" in order to establish which it means to have email, which is what we are talking about. Not the entire field of UX. You are correct, I have confused table 1 and table 2. Here is what the definition from your link says: > Email is the electronic version of the interoffice, inter-organizational paper-based mail system. Email is not simply the exchange of text messages. Email is really a system --- a system of interlocking parts, each of which is essential for ordinary people to communicate effectively with one or many others, in an environment where different kinds of information must be shared (memos, documents, files, etc.) i.e. the modern office environment. It then lists 30 some odd features in Table 1, followed by: > All of these parts, interconnected together, were essential to the functioning of the interoffice mail system. If any one component was taken away, such as Attachments or Folders or the ability to send Carbon Copies, you no longer had a functioning interoffice mail system. By that definition, I did not use email for many years, despite thinking that I did use email. Specifically, BSD Mail did not support drafts, attachments, folders (including trash folders), an address book, return receipts, or prioritization, to pick the most obvious ones. [0] According to the above definition, I didn't have a "functioning interoffice mail system". Which is perfectly fine with me, as I didn't need one. But that's because I do not believe that "Email is the electronic version of the interoffice, inter-organizational paper-based mail system." Otherwise, what's the word which describes what I did in exchanging messages over SMTP? The entire argument is based on a definition of email which is so hyperspecific that it would be laughable if there weren't expensive lawsuits involved. [0] I composed email messages as files. Once done I sent the file. BSD Mail can append a message to a file, but not to folders - I specified the filename. The first time I saw an attachment in a mail application was at a NeXTStep demo. MIME wasn't out. Instead, I uuencoded any "attachment" manually, and included it as part of the message. Also, I still use BSD Mail as quick reader because I'm always logged into my mail server machine, and it's easier to type "Mail" followed by the message number than to download it into Mail.app.
    - abalone 9y ago
      Yeah, I think you're right about the overly rigid definition, but I also think he's right in saying modern "email" would actually expect those features. You survived without drafts, attachments, etc... but I'm guessing you are a fairly advanced, technical user willing to put up with limitations. His focus was on making something usable for typical office workers. In 1978. I would say his definition is not "hyperspecific". Those 30-odd feature are, in fact, a pretty uncontroversially fair set of expected functionality in email systems. And the fact that he (supposedly) implemented them ahead of even the systems you were using in the 80s is worth note.

eesmith 9y ago

I don't think I made my point clearly enough. Was I, in the 1980s and 1990s, using email, when I didn't use a system which has the features that he says are required to be called "email"? If I wasn't using email, then he's using a definition which is highly idiosyncratic. If I was using email, then people before him, in the 1970s, were using email. More specifically, which feature finally made a simple text mail client like BSD Mail become "email". The concept "usable" is effectively meaningless. You can always change the threshold. Gmail is far more usable than his system was.

abalone 9y ago
> The concept "usable" is effectively meaningless. I mean come on, that can't be true. You've just invalidated the whole field of UX and perhaps the most defining aspect of breakthrough products. Yes, it's hard to define and up to debate. That's why there's a debate. But it doesn't help to say, we can't talk about it, only concrete primitives. As to his definition of email, I think you're mixing up his program's specific feature list (printing, relational DB, etc.) with his definition, which is more general. Having said that I do think it's a bit too strong to require 100% compliance to his definition, like requiring an address book.[1] Having said that, when we compare that list to what was available in 1978 it's much starker how advanced it was (assuming it actually worked). [1] http://www.inventorofemail.com/definition_of_email.asp http://www.inventorofemail.com/definition_of_email.asp
- eesmith 9y ago
  "Effectively meaningless" in order to establish which it means to have email, which is what we are talking about. Not the entire field of UX. You are correct, I have confused table 1 and table 2. Here is what the definition from your link says: > Email is the electronic version of the interoffice, inter-organizational paper-based mail system. Email is not simply the exchange of text messages. Email is really a system --- a system of interlocking parts, each of which is essential for ordinary people to communicate effectively with one or many others, in an environment where different kinds of information must be shared (memos, documents, files, etc.) i.e. the modern office environment. It then lists 30 some odd features in Table 1, followed by: > All of these parts, interconnected together, were essential to the functioning of the interoffice mail system. If any one component was taken away, such as Attachments or Folders or the ability to send Carbon Copies, you no longer had a functioning interoffice mail system. By that definition, I did not use email for many years, despite thinking that I did use email. Specifically, BSD Mail did not support drafts, attachments, folders (including trash folders), an address book, return receipts, or prioritization, to pick the most obvious ones. [0] According to the above definition, I didn't have a "functioning interoffice mail system". Which is perfectly fine with me, as I didn't need one. But that's because I do not believe that "Email is the electronic version of the interoffice, inter-organizational paper-based mail system." Otherwise, what's the word which describes what I did in exchanging messages over SMTP? The entire argument is based on a definition of email which is so hyperspecific that it would be laughable if there weren't expensive lawsuits involved. [0] I composed email messages as files. Once done I sent the file. BSD Mail can append a message to a file, but not to folders - I specified the filename. The first time I saw an attachment in a mail application was at a NeXTStep demo. MIME wasn't out. Instead, I uuencoded any "attachment" manually, and included it as part of the message. Also, I still use BSD Mail as quick reader because I'm always logged into my mail server machine, and it's easier to type "Mail" followed by the message number than to download it into Mail.app.
  - abalone 9y ago
    Yeah, I think you're right about the overly rigid definition, but I also think he's right in saying modern "email" would actually expect those features. You survived without drafts, attachments, etc... but I'm guessing you are a fairly advanced, technical user willing to put up with limitations. His focus was on making something usable for typical office workers. In 1978. I would say his definition is not "hyperspecific". Those 30-odd feature are, in fact, a pretty uncontroversially fair set of expected functionality in email systems. And the fact that he (supposedly) implemented them ahead of even the systems you were using in the 80s is worth note.