7 ms·

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 sur

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
The are a subset of the expected functionality in modern email systems. The list leaves out all of the other features that we expect in a modern email system meant for non-technical users, like a GUI interface including drag&drop attachments, spell-checking as you type, and rich text. Where do you draw the line? Which UX features are critical before saying something is "email", and which are non-essential? The thesis, which I strongly disagree with, is that all of those features are required to have email. Once you weaken those hyper-specific requirements somewhat, he is no longer the inventor of email. While if you strengthen those requirements, email didn't happen until a decade or more later. You write: "And the fact that he (supposedly) implemented them ahead of even the systems you were using in the 80s is worth note." No, it it not worth a note. It means I was a student with only access to crappy systems. I was asking why I was wrong to say that I was using email on such a crappy system that did not implement all of the required points of Table 1. That SIGCIS link you pointed to shows a 1 minute ad about Laurel, from Xerox PARC. It's a mouse-driven email system with, among other things, group support ("everyone on the routing list should see this"), local message sorting, and WYSIWIG output to a laser printer. In 1978. That's what's of note. The flip side to my question is, why wasn't Laurel or other systems from 1978 also email?

eesmith 9y ago

The are a subset of the expected functionality in modern email systems. The list leaves out all of the other features that we expect in a modern email system meant for non-technical users, like a GUI interface including drag&drop attachments, spell-checking as you type, and rich text. Where do you draw the line? Which UX features are critical before saying something is "email", and which are non-essential? The thesis, which I strongly disagree with, is that all of those features are required to have email. Once you weaken those hyper-specific requirements somewhat, he is no longer the inventor of email. While if you strengthen those requirements, email didn't happen until a decade or more later. You write: "And the fact that he (supposedly) implemented them ahead of even the systems you were using in the 80s is worth note." No, it it not worth a note. It means I was a student with only access to crappy systems. I was asking why I was wrong to say that I was using email on such a crappy system that did not implement all of the required points of Table 1. That SIGCIS link you pointed to shows a 1 minute ad about Laurel, from Xerox PARC. It's a mouse-driven email system with, among other things, group support ("everyone on the routing list should see this"), local message sorting, and WYSIWIG output to a laser printer. In 1978. That's what's of note. The flip side to my question is, why wasn't Laurel or other systems from 1978 also email?