[1718627440]

A filter is different from searching. It only works on the current directory, it alters the view after it has been generated. You can also use it on a search.

Don't know about others, but I find the functionality useful and use them for different purposes. Searching is when I want to find random messages, where I don't know where or from when there are, the filter is for bulk processing and narrowing the current working set, beside the conversation level.

It is more like the steering wheel and choosing forward/reverse, sure both are for choosing the driving direction, but they operate at different levels and are used in different situations. I mean you could use the steering wheel for forward/backward if you want to. Using the gear to change the direction less than 180° is quite difficult, but not impossible.

[justsomehnguy]

You are just trying to confirm your beliefs.

Thing is, the 'filter' box can work as a filter and as a search box. It's even a simple heuristic if it should behave as a filter or switch to the search - if there is no result for the text entered in the textbox then switch to the search.

There is zero need to have two search boxes, it's just Mozilla wanted to copy-paste the idiotic solution of MS Office with a top-most search function. That's all.

[1718627440]

Ok?

Do you ever only use one of find and grep? I think they are very similar as the search and the filter bar. I mean you can replace find with tree | grep, not sure about the other way around, but it's probably also possible.

> There is zero need

I do, so it is not exactly zero and I would be annoyed to have them gone, because it is a huge time saver when handling thousands of messages.

> if there is no result for the text entered in the textbox then switch to the search

If the filter starts to draw in messages from other directories, that would be stupid and kind of defeats the point of having a filter in a first place. If you want that why don't you use the search?

> it's just Mozilla wanted to copy-paste the idiotic solution of MS Office with a top-most search function

I don't care where the search bar is placed and I think that functionality did already exist before the current UI, either via ^K or in a menu. I (maybe) do agree with you, in that I don't like putting widgets in window frames (that's for the WM) and prefer classical (CUA-like) menubars.

Can you please criticize the functionality itself? I can't comprehend why you don't see the point of a separate filter. Do you mostly keep messages in the INBOX?

Maybe my original word choice wasn't optimal, because you can consider filtering a subset of searching, but I do consider them to be different. If you rather you use a different terminology, that's fine, but I don't think it will change my point.

[justsomehnguy]

> Do you ever only use one of find and grep?

It's not a CLI. More so, redundant functions eats the screen real estate, which isn't getting taller on a non-mobile platforms.

> I do, so it is not exactly zero and I would be annoyed to have them gone, because it is a huge time saver when handling thousands of messages.

You sounds like I'm advocating to removal of both the search and the filter boxes.

> If the filter starts to draw in messages from other directories

sigh

You input something in the combined search|filter box:

If you got the result you need from this folder then you just do your thing.

If you did not got the result you need then press Enter which would start the search in the whole mailbox, just like the search textbox works now.

> I don't care where the search bar is placed

Great for you, but I care. TB interface was already far from understandable by both computer illiterate and computer literate and this is just another illogical placement what doesn't add functionality, yet wastes the space.

BTW, did you provided the support to anyone by the phone? Can you be sure what the person on the other side inputs in the right textbox? I can, somewhat, if there is only one. If there are two then 70% of time they would use the wrong one even if telling you it's the right one. I provided enough L1/L2 to know it well.

> Can you please criticize the functionality itself

Yes, there is no functionality need in the two separate textboxes for, essentially, one function: searching.

> Do you mostly keep messages in the INBOX?

Thanks, no.

> because you can consider filtering a subset of searching, but I do consider them to be different

Yes, they both are the methods to find some message/s what you can't just scroll to. And those 'quick filter' buttons near the current filter textbox are quite nice, btw.

My problem is what that search textbox is a clear import from the MS Outlook[0] and it was did only to mimic the other product, without a second of actually thinking if this is even needed.

Just imagine: what if instead of that search box that space would be used for... a filter/search combo textbox, along with a quickfilter buttons, just like today, but not wasting the space for nothing in the window titlebar.

Also I finally noticed what there is even a special combo to invoke the filter so it also can be used to differentiate the usage right away: ctrl+shift+k - filtering, ctrl+shift+f - searching the mailbox.

Just for the sake of it I did a poor man's mock-up:

https://ibb.co/JjXwxhhB

And, uh, just one more thing: when you do search in TB you are brought to a separate tab with the search result. There is zero need to the search input to stay in the current search box. It's literally useless.

[0] if never even saw it then just search for the screenshots.

EDIT: and about 'heuristic' - there also two ways to do it:

1. just have a toogle buried somewhere, to enable/disable autosearch

2. just do the search automatically, with a low priority and find a way to notify the user what this are results from the other folder. Can be as simple as '--- results from the other folders ---' line.

[1718627440]

> It's not a CLI

It is not about the invocation, search and filter bar differ in the same way as find and grep. Even if they are similar, they are still different enough to not benefit from unifying.

>> I don't care ...

I mean that as: I don't object to a different placement of the global search bar.

> My problem is what that search textbox is a clear import from the MS Outlook

I don't know the history and which program's search box predates the other. Note, that the search bar predates the current UI change, see below.

> not wasting the space for nothing in the window titlebar

As I have written earlier, I also don't like UI in the titlebar. But neither do I like yet another omnibar.

I think I should start again with describing how I perceive the functionality:

There is a global (across accounts, folders) search UI, which is a whole different "window"/tab, with different kinds of logical search parameters. The result view is displayed paged, with time, account and folder graphs, but can be converted to a standard message list view. This can be used when you have no clue and just focus completely on searching random content. The global search bar is just a "button" to open this UI and prefill the search box.

Suppose you have an already existent curated working set of messages. Then you want to select a few and operate on them. This is what the filter bar is for. You don't need to change your focus to a different UI element, it is just a way to pre-select your working set or temporarily restrict your view to focus on just some messages.

Note, how a lot of functionality is in adjusting the UI to support the state of mind of the user.

Enhancing the filter to work across folders is maybe a feature, I don't have a use for that yet. It doesn't makes sense with the current placement, because that indicates, that it is in the current folder frame. I wouldn't implement it like you, I would probably add a checkbox, but that's an implementation detail. But then getting rid of the search bar/functionality is just that, removing functionality.

The alternative way seams to be to merge the filter into the search bar, but that either amounts to the same or means adding a filter to the search to limit it to a specific folder, but this already exists.

> You sounds like I'm advocating to removal of both the search and the filter boxes.

That's because trying to merge them and removing the other, results in getting rid of one of two useful UI-flows. Currently it is also possible to first search and then use the filter on that. This also won't be possible when you merge them.

> Did you provided support to anyone by the phone?

Not yet for TB, but I give you that this might result in confusion. I don't think dumbing down the UI to solely improve tech support over the phone seams worthwhile.

> ctrl+shift+f - searching the mailbox.

That's yet another thing entirely. This invokes a server-side search as opposed to the two client side functionalities we are discussing now.

I uploaded a screenshot of how TB (115) currently looks for me: https://ibb.co/FbsKYF1H

Interestingly the height is less then any of your mockups. Maybe that is, because I don't have any scaling factor. My display is 1366x768, that results in a maximized window size of 1365x707. So this amounts to 32.5%, yes that is quite some space. I think in practice I tend to just mentally fade out anything above the menubar.

As I got curious, I reinstalled version 102. I remember feeling disappointed about the upgrade, because there was suddenly a lot of useless whitespace, but I didn't remember anything concrete. Here is how it looks: https://ibb.co/n8P2CjB4 That only occupies 25.5%, which seams better. I am surprised how you can now select more then one item in listviews for example in the folder pane and the subscription window. This is a huge deal, because selecting hundreds of folders individually to subscribe to them is just really annoying. I think I definitely like this UI more and don't know why there was this huge UI regression. It also seams to startup faster.

Note, that in both images I have the tab bar, which seams to be missing in all your mockups.

How are the numbers on your computer, as it seams even worse then on mine? Do you still have the same objections to the old UI?

> this is just another illogical placement what doesn't add functionality, yet wastes the space.

Do you have a proposal for placement without merging/removing functionality?

[justsomehnguy]

Oh, after sending the previous comment and taking a piss it occurred to me.

Behold, "that stupid bar have no reason to exist in the first place except for TB devs to copy-paste some shit" mock-up:

https://ibb.co/Kx9dD2n5

And don't let me start on that idiotic vertical toolbar.

[1718627440]

> And don't let me start on that idiotic vertical toolbar.

You can fade it out. I didn't remember how it used to be, but it was different.

[justsomehnguy]

> It is not about the invocation, search and filter bar differ in the same way as find and grep. Even if they are similar, they are still different enough to not benefit from unifying.

Well, as I said - it's very easy to do so in this case by clearly separating the way it works and presents the data. It's not the ideal solution nor it would work for everyone (case number one: you) but it would still be better than the current mess.

> I don't know the history and which program's search box predates the other. Note, that the search bar predates the current UI change, see below.

Outlook in 2020/2021, TB in 2022/2023 [0]

> The alternative way seams to be to merge the filter into the search bar

And moving the search bar somewhere sensical. Yes, this is the way I imagine what would work for the most, including me. Filter by default, search if <Enter> (just like today with the search bar!) OR no results from filter with a clear identification it's the search now, not the filter results.

> Currently it is also possible to first search and then use the filter on that. This also won't be possible when you merge them.

But the search results are already on the separate tab! You can't search and filter on the same tab, or at least I never discovered how to do so, because the second I press <Enter> in the search the separate tab with the results open. Nobody forbids to still show the filter bar/box there, it's a separate UI-flow anyway.

> I don't think dumbing down the UI to solely improve tech support over the phone seams worthwhile.

It's not about phone tech support of course, it's about how a regular folks interact with the UI. And in my opinion the current design isn't good for regular Joe.

> Maybe that is, because I don't have any scaling factor

4k with 1.5x, so numbers are off. Anyway, it's about comparison, not the actual px count.

This is on my notebook (1920x1200, non-scaled) main screen: https://ibb.co/qYCmwD7b ~245px tall, which still makes it 20%.

Another trouble is what with all these scaling shenanigans everything people write me is... gigantic to say at least, so I forced to have the reading pane much taller for the same amount of the content I needed ten years ago, so a 5-7 lines of text. It's not TB's problem per se (and scaling in the reading pane works) but it's still something I didn't need to bother 10 years ago and having something eat my vertical screen estate makes me fume!

> My display is 1366x768

> So this amounts to 32.5%,

Yikes!

And yes, literally 30% of the screen is not displaying anything useful (besides contents of the filter bar).

Also it's quite evident what TB developers not only do not use such screens and resolutions but don't care about it at all. Because any sensical (third time here!) person would ask "why the fuck I'm looking at my mail through a tank gun port?!".

> Note, that in both images I have the tab bar, which seams to be missing in all your mockups.

Was confused at first but then it occurred to me. Yes, if I have any searches or open messages than goes another ~50px, up to 300px:

https://ibb.co/WWFt3mnd

> Do you still have the same objections to the old UI?

Go to 115 release [1] and notice how they show 102 with the tabs and 115 without. Totally honest guys.

There are things in 102 UI which I don't like too, but at least there were no stupid mega-ultra-uber-search bar on the top.

> Do you have a proposal for placement without merging/removing functionality?

Uhm. As I said earlier - for the search you are moved to a separate search tab after hitting <Enter>. There is no need to have the search bar everywhere in the app in the first place. But okay, remove the bar, leave the fucking magnifying glass icon, exactly like the 90% of stupid sites do. Bonus points: remove the 'search' button so the user is forced to press <Enter> key to actually perform the search. Just like the other 90% of stupid sites do. Web 3.0! Web 3.0 is everywhere!

[0] It's PITA to search for, but TB 91 (August 11, 2021) didn't yet had the search bar, TB 102 (June 29, 2022) had it a bit more sensically but not yet a fully separate bar; and TB 115 (July 11, 2023) finally did it the current way. [1]

While Outlook had it at least on May 31, 2020 [2]

[1] https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/115.0/whatsnew...

[2] https://blog.rcsprofessional.com/changes-to-the-microsoft-ou...

NB:

>> Hi there was just a release where they deleted the entire task bar with useful buttons and replaced it with a search bar (ie the same thing microsoft did adding that giant search bar on top of word and excel that nobody asked for or wanted). Not exactly sure why, since there is also another search bar just below it.

>> Mar 25 2023

https://old.reddit.com/r/Thunderbird/comments/1214smv/how_to...

Heh.

[1718627440]

I still think the separate UI(-flow) is worthwhile, but I guess I will die on this hill.

Not sure about the history, I think I used the search-functionality pre-2020, as it is, but maybe it was a button back then.

> re. tabbar

Yes, I have that open permanently, it is an option in the normal settings. I don't like the UI to yank around and I will have another tab open anyways.

I think I would accept getting rid of the search bar, when I get a button instead and the bar is ripped out entirely, like you suggest in the sibling comment.

> You can't search and filter on the same tab

Yes you can, that's what I claim. You convert the search results into a list and then you can use the filter as always.

This is kind of the point, why I object to you converting the filter bar into a search bar: Because the filter doesn't work on any physical existing folder, it works on whatever happens to be in the current list, even if that are search results or a conversation view. Changing that to work on other not displayed folders will be very inconsistent, because that is a different functionality. THIS is my distinction between filtering and searching. A filter won't come up with random different messages from somewhere-else, it only works on the already closed set of selected messages.

> everything people write me is... gigantic to say at least

You know you can press C--, right ?

> And yes, literally 30% of the screen is not displaying anything useful

Yeah, after running the numbers I am more convinced why you want to get rid of the search-bar. Maybe I have stockholm syndrome . :-) This is sadly a general trend, but I get used to it. Recently I started scaling the other way, making everything smaller then I have pixels, but this makes everything very blurry and text hard to read, since it gets smaller than a pixel. But still in this case I think it is useful to have that bar, and it wouldn't yield any space, since we won't get rid of that bar entirely, it will be completely empty besides that "hamburger" menu.

When TB devs would be sane to get rid of that bar, they could keep the search bar somewhere else (like v102).

> And in my opinion the current design isn't good for regular Joe.

I think I always need to enable the filter pane, when I want to use it, so it is only there when I really intend to filter, it wouldn't cause confusion when searching, because it is not there most of the time.

But maybe the average user doesn't restarts programs all that often.

> https://ibb.co/WWFt3mnd

Wait did you crop the search bar out, or is there a way to disable it???

Do you have disabled the button descriptions or why do I have them and you don't?

>>> Hi there was just a release where they deleted

Oh, no. Guess I will eventually upgrade to ~v91 again and leave it like this and hope there won't be any vulnerabilities. I already did that once for Firefox 45, but websites got to much functionality to fast, so I needed to "downgrade" to a newer version eventually.

I didn't knew it for long, since I continue using an existing installation, but do you know, how a new installation looks like? It basically only starts with the "hamburger" menu and a big screen of that thunderbird website. You basically need to bootstrap the UI, to get anything useful. First you enable the menubar and then you can start enabling all the other UI.

Thanks for the discussion, I think we have maybe more to agree then I initially thought. Design seams to be more controversial then I considered. But what are all this "designers" even doing? Why do we get more and more pixels just to display white void? Maybe the designers will agree on some areas to always display whitespace and then we can remove pixels from some areas to reduce costs. /s

I think you still didn't get my semantic argument about filtering vs. searching, but whatever. I think the filter bar is some of the subtil and consistent things in the UI, since it resides inside the listview and filters inside that listview. Anyways if you aren't yet tired of the discussion, what do you dislike about v102?

> There are things in 102 UI which I don't like too.