GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 251100
chaning the terms for "search" and "filter"
Last modified: 2006-07-11 11:35:31 UTC
I've always found the terms "search" and "filter", as used in Evolution, to be slightly misleading. When doing a "search", I actually am filtering the messages displayed for the current folder. It's not possible to do a search on multiple folders -- that's what a VFolder does. When creating a "filter", there is indeed a filter for messages. But it is a stored, delayed action that the mailer takes on incoming messages (or from the more-hidden right-click menu). (Yes, this is a small nit, but you'll see my line reasoning below.) What I'd like to propose, in light of 2.0 having changed so many things, is to take the opportunity to rename these two features. I really think that "filter" should be used to describe what is currently called a "search". This jibes nicely with the idea of customized "views" (sort, columns, etc). It is also conceptually closer to what I am doing on the folder: a search implies a certain globality; a filter "sticks" with my folder. On the other hand, what is currently called a "filter" would make sense as a "message rule", "message action", or the like. "Rule" has the advantage of being used by both MS Outlook/OE *and* Apple's Mail.app. This would help those converting to Evolution by giving them a term in line with what they're used to. I hope that you'll consider this, even if this seems a small point. The ease of predicting the resulting action from a menu item/button label greatly improves one's learning curve and ease of everyday use. Thanks for taking the time to consdier this report.
the problem is that every other mailer in the world calls what we call a filter, a filter. and so changing it to your views would confuse people more, because it wouldn't be consistant with any other mailer. imho. anyways, up to anna's team to decide.
Not to be contentious, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate to say that "very other" mailer uses this terminology. A search in Outlook Express returns a list of objects in a separate window, similar to a file search dialog. I guess in the end, the main reason behind this report was less the usage of "search" but rather the (mis)use of "filter". I think that the two are semantically close enough that it's an avoidable source of (potential) confusion. "Delivery Actions" or "Rules" or the like instead of "Filters" would provide a more distinct term and bring Evolution into line with other mailers. This latter point would be an asset, especially in light of the earlier comment. :)
It looks like Evolution calls them "Filters" in some parts of the application and "Rules" in other parts. Unifying them as "Rules" makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, search still seems to be the correct term and the most understandable.
so it's a documentation issue that the naming is not different (rules and filters), the same as bug 241909 ("address book" and "contacts").
changing component to "Mailer" to get rid of the UI component, also reassigning as discussed with nags... adding UI keyword.
john: the menu item is now called "message filters" which should make it more clear to everyone. evolution 2.8 will have a new search interface where you can search by account or in all folders. "rules" are both filters and vfolders/search folders, so it's correct in the documentation. i'm inclined to mark this as WONTFIX, please contradict if you like to.
(In reply to comment #6) > john: the menu item is now called "message filters" which should make it more > clear to everyone. evolution 2.8 will have a new search interface where you can > search by account or in all folders. > > "rules" are both filters and vfolders/search folders, so it's correct in the > documentation. > > i'm inclined to mark this as WONTFIX, please contradict if you like to. Thanks for the update, Andre. I'm a bit behind in Evo versions so I haven't followed this latest news. It does indeed sound like Evo 2.8 with a global search will "solve" my original bug by adding functionality. Not sure about filters, but if the term is used consistantly then I guess that resolves the other part of my original bug. Thanks again for the info, good luck to you...