GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 301404
reversal of 'mark as important' is not the same as 'mark as unimportant'
Last modified: 2009-05-03 03:45:28 UTC
Please describe the problem: the context menu option to remove the important mark from a message is 'mark as unimportant' - this is silly, guys... :-) one good alternative is 'remove important mark'. at any rate none of my messages are unimportant, and if I had less intuition about ui's (ie, was less geeky) I would probably actually be confused by this. Steps to reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Does this happen every time? Other information:
still valid in 2.2.2, there should be a decision for 2.3 (therefore targetting because of the menu rewrite dobey is working on). i vote for "mark as not important" as impression.
I still side with 'remove important message mark': 'not important' is a good deal better than 'unimportant', but still not optimal. it still sounds like it is less important than an average email. the result of removing the important flag is that the message has no special status, so in a sense it isn't really even MARKing, it's more UNmarking. that is in line with the way it is presented visually, too.
you really need to get out more
punting
well, the user knows what is meant by that, and any other phrasening would seriously need much more letters. "remove important message mark" is too long, and i'd prefer to mark this as a WONTFIX.
there has to be something between "unimportant" and "important" - "Remove important mark" was not too long for kmail. I would even prefer "Unmark important" despite its not-quite-english status, or "Mark normal" despite the ambiguity, as I think both are slightly clearer in context than "mark as unimportant" - more importantly, a desktop product should avoid sounding silly or remotely confusing, and "mark as unimportant" is cute to the point of being both silly and slightly confusing.
Bumping version to a stable release.
*** Bug 546244 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Not worth changing; the meaning is clear from the context. If needed we can add a translator comment to help clarify.