All posts in the topic Better Notification of File Upload in Email Messages (Short link)
Summary
- There are 12 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Michael JasonSmith at Apr 30 05:02 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Dan Randow | test.txt test.pdf | Apr 30 03:15 UTC |
| Dan Randow | attachment.html | Apr 30 03:28 UTC |
In Ticket 248 https://svn.iopen.net/projects/groupserver/ticket/248 I propose adding the file-upload notification to the email messages as an attachment. This will cause an attachment-icon to be associated with the message in the user's email inbox. This is will assist the user to find the user to find a message with an associated file; it is not intended to overcome poor writing, where the author of the message makes no reference to the associated file. David Wooley was concerned about the proliferation of files that would result from the system proposed in Ticket 248. I suspect that this concern was caused by the less-than-full explanation in the ticket, which I will try and rectify now. The proposed notification will be a plain-text file that is attached to the email message. The notification will contain a link to the file on the Web, just like it does now. In addition, the attachment is given the “content disposition” that causes the email client to display the file notification in-line, just below the main message. The user will not have to open or save the attachment. We have tried the system, and it works well in Microsoft Outlook, Apple Mail, Mozilla Thunderbird and Novel Evolution. We found that there is little practical difference between reading a message with a file-notification that is an attachment and reading a message that is currently generated by GroupServer. We will test more systems (IBM Lotus Notes, Pegasus Mail, Web mail…) we develop this code more. I dislike placing the file notifications at the top of the document for three reasons. First, it is different from standard email, which always places attachments at the bottom of the message. My second concern is that it does not solve the core problem of the author making no reference to the uploaded files in the message, so the reader does not have any reason to look at them. My final concern is that it moves the notification out of the context of the message, so the reader knows little about what the files are and why he or she should look at them.
Michael, The attachment icon in the message header will make it significantly easier to identify that a post has an attachment, before the email is opened. Once the email is open, however, I am concerned that, with your proposal, there will be "little practical difference between reading a message with a file-notification that is an attachment and reading a message that is currently generated by GroupServer" and that the proposal "is not intended to overcome poor writing, where the author of the message makes no reference to the associated file." I think that it would be very useful if we could overcome that problem to some extent. The current file links require the user to scroll to the bottom of the email, possibly passing large amounts of excessive bottom-quoting as they do. Showing the file links there has the same problem as showing anything else in the message footer. People don't read it. If the file-link attachments did not display in-line, but showed as file attachments usually do, then they would be much easier to spot, while reading an email. My email client, Thunderbird for example, shows a separate pane below the message, with file attachment icons. Is there a file-format that we could use that would show as attachments, and would link quickly to the target files? Would the XML Link File format (.XLNK) achieve this? http://www.t-arn.com/software/XLNK.html Alternatively, what if it were possible to create a file attachment with the same mime-type as the target file, that linked to the target file when opened? As this would look _very_ much like the file was actually attached to the message, I expect people would find it very easy to use. It would provide no indication that the file was not actually attached, but I can't see a major downside to that. Is this anything like feasible?
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 23:24 +0000, Michael JasonSmith wrote:
> I dislike placing the file notifications at the top of the document for
> three reasons. First, it is different from standard email, which always
> places attachments at the bottom of the message. My second concern is
> that it does not solve the core problem of the author making no
> reference to the uploaded files in the message, so the reader does not
> have any reason to look at them. My final concern is that it moves the
> notification out of the context of the message, so the reader knows
> little about what the files are and why he or she should look at
> them.
The core of the problem is not, in fact, that the author makes no
reference to the files. I have been in groups where bottom quoting is
common place (because it has, unfortunately, become the standard), and
the *real* problem is that people can't *find* the attachment
notifications, and/or don't know where they should be looking for them.
I've very rarely seen someone forget to say they've attached something.
I propose a 2 fold tweak:
1: replace the file notification with an in-line attachment containing
the file notification (unfortunately we can't attach .url files, because
they have been so badly abused by spammers in the past that outlook now
blocks them by default). This will make it clearer, in *most* clients,
that there is some kind of attachment. It does *not* solve the problem
of not knowing where to look, because is it not necessarily separated
out from the message body when viewing the email.
2: insert a 1 line pre-body banner (as opposed to a header, which has a
different meaning in the email context), saying something like "This
email has had attachments archived, scroll to the bottom to
download" (that isn't optimal wording, but you get the idea).
I don't think the 'standard' argument applies, because archiving
attachments isn't a standard thing, even though it's actually pretty
great (particularly for those of us who heavily use mobile email).
Banner insertions are actually pretty common in corporate mail systems.
I think the argument that the attachment notifications themselves should
*not* go at the top is good. That would just be a real pain, and ugly to
boot (I don't want to have to scroll down through 3 attachments before
getting to the email). A single line is a reasonable compromise I think,
it's no longer than the 'in reply to' banner in a reply anyway.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 12:44 +1200, Dan Randow wrote: > If the file-link attachments did not display in-line, but showed as file > attachments usually do, then they would be much easier to spot, while > reading an email. My email client, Thunderbird for example, shows a > separate pane below the message, with file attachment icons. > > Is there a file-format that we could use that would show as attachments, > and would link quickly to the target files? Would the XML Link File > format (.XLNK) achieve this? > http://www.t-arn.com/software/XLNK.html No, because as far as I can tell it's some random format that someone came up with that isn't interpreted by anything other than their own software. It's not possible to use the MS .lnk format, because unfortunately every spammer and his dog uses it to trick people, and so the Outlook team blocked it by default (after coming up with it). > Alternatively, what if it were possible to create a file attachment with > the same mime-type as the target file, that linked to the target file > when opened? As this would look _very_ much like the file was actually > attached to the message, I expect people would find it very easy to use. > It would provide no indication that the file was not actually attached, > but I can't see a major downside to that. Is this anything like feasible? No, because it would just think the attachment was the file of whatever mime-type you specified. It's like giving someone an orange that has been made to look exactly like an apple. They cut it open and it still has an orange inside. Cutting it open doesn't magically replace the orange with an apple.
Have you considered a fairly simple .html attachment formatted either to look like each site or at least something generic with some context and a layout/sans serif font like you use on the site? Perhaps something like: Development Online Group Topic: Now people will find attachments File shared by: Steven Clift This post contains a file(s). Click on the file name to open the file via your web browser. * helloiamapicture.jpg * metoo.jpg * ihavesomethingtosay.doc If you have trouble downloading these files from this message, visit this post and files on the web site from: http://fulllinktopost.com (Add for Private Groups: These files were shared via a "private" online group. You may need to use your SITE NAME password after you click on a file. (Then as once proposed by Richard, allow open downloading of private files for X days w/o a password.)) Note: This online group supports file sharing. Please name your file with meaning before attaching to an e-mail sent to the group or before uploading the file via the group website. Because files are on the server and not directly e-mailed, you may share large files up to XYMB. You may browse past files by topic via the online group or access them by search. (Perhaps you want some sort of lesson in how to use the file sharing repeated again and again, since we are teaching people new behaviour and thus far folks aren't taking much advantage of this feature.)
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 08:29 -0500, Steven Clift wrote:
<snip HTML attachment>
If you mean format the whole message as an HTML message then ... no I
hadn't considered it. I think actually that would be really confusing,
as messages with files would come as HTML (and defeat the purpose of
eliminating HTML postings), and other messages would not.
If you mean making the attachments HTML, then ... that might possibly
work, and it's worth a try.
> (Then as once proposed by Richard, allow open downloading of private
> files for X days w/o a password.))
Actually, this is more than a proposal. This is implemented. Any group
can have this (and has able to have it switched on for months now).
> Note: This online group supports file sharing. Please name your file
> with meaning before attaching to an e-mail sent to the group or before
> uploading the file via the group website. Because files are on the
> server and not directly e-mailed, you may share large files up to
> XYMB. You may browse past files by topic via the online group or
> access them by search.
I think that might be a little excessive for every email -- the problem
actually isn't the message. The problem is that the 'standard' (as we
all well know) these days is for people not to snip any of the previous
message/s at all, and to bottom quote the whole shebang. Which means
that you'll get that paragraph, plus all the attachment notifications,
in every reply.
> (Perhaps you want some sort of lesson in how to use the file sharing
> repeated again and again, since we are teaching people new behaviour
> and thus far folks aren't taking much advantage of this feature.)
I agree. I actually don't think we educate users about the file sharing
feature *at all* at the moment.
Use actually varies from group to group. The onlinegroups.net hosted
sites have over 20,000 files. e-democracy has about 2,000. I know the
groups I'm in use it quite heavily. I'm in groups which have the exact
problem being discussed -- people will send email with attachments,
then send it *again* to everyone as a cc because they can't find the
attachments they sent. I don't bother educating them, because I *know*
that the current system isn't working as well as it could.
I think once people appreciate that:
1: They can send bigger attachments, because people don't have to
download them with the email (a problem even with broadband if you have
my mail volume);
2: It enables more mobile email, because the messages are smaller, and
people aren't forced to download the attachments (and yet are still able
to, even from mobile email clients);
3: The files are *archived* and thus searchable, and retrievable from
pretty much *anywhere*.
then we will get more effective of the system.
Richard Waid wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 08:29 -0500, Steven Clift wrote:
> <snip HTML attachment>
>
> If you mean format the whole message as an HTML message then ... no I
> hadn't considered it. I think actually that would be really confusing,
> as messages with files would come as HTML (and defeat the purpose of
> eliminating HTML postings), and other messages would not.
>
> If you mean making the attachments HTML, then ... that might possibly
> work, and it's worth a try.
>
Yes, just an HTML attachment not main posting.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 15:48 -0500, Steven Clift wrote:
> Yes, just an HTML attachment not main posting.
I'll give that a go, and see how it works out ...
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 15:48 -0500, Steven Clift wrote:
> Yes, just an HTML attachment not main posting.
Well... In evolution that would work perfectly. Very nice idea Steve! :)
And what is even better, the links wouldn't be posted back with every
reply. I'll talk it over with Mike and see if we can break the idea at
all (and see what it looks like in other clients).
What advantage would an HTML attachment have over a plain text one?
Both would show attachment icons in the inbox, and the email.
Both would render inline.
Both would enable the existing file reference text to be displayed.
Both would work if opened explicitly.
HTML would enable us to display link text that was different to the link
target. Is there any benefit in that?
Would HTML be more likely to be blocked by spam filters?
(To illustrate what we are talking about, I've attached a couple of test
files to this post.)
By the way, we should remove the "tags" item from that notification.
Attached is a mock-up of how the HTML notification could look.
The following file was added to this topic.
- Name: attachment.html
- Type: text/html
- Size: 0.31KB
Dan,
I cannot think of a reason that HTML messages would be any more or less likely
to get blocked by spam-filters.
Posting
Only members who are logged in can post, and you are not logged in.