Bugzilla

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #11)
> (In reply to Thomas D. (:thomas8) from comment #9)
> > Jason had some critical user feedback from Twitter today which confirms my QA/UX analysis from comment 2: The current title and text of the dialog is just inappopriate (think business meetings), confusing, and doesn't explain the actual problem well at all
> 
> Hah, who said business needs to be all stiff! ;-)

Good point! :-)
However, the funerals and many other sombre occasions definitely are.

> > - after all, you *are* on the guest list, you *are* invited (so you are *not* party-crashing), but you're just about to answer with a different email address of yours which may mess things up for both you (attendee's privacy) and the organizer (who will find an unknown email in his guest list).
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions. I don't think we can say if any of that is true.

??

> What "you" is, is an identity. If you even got the invite as a direct email, it's perfectly possible, likely even, that it would be *seen* as party crashing by the inviter. He sent something to Alice, and all the sudden get a reply from Bob who he didn't knew existed. What would he do with this info?
> AFAIK the standards doesn't allow for a workflow where you can change identity like that.

Good point which just complements what I'm saying. We totally agree that answering with a different email than the one invited is bad practice, may violate invitee's privacy, and will confuse the organizer - and yes, *the organizer* may well perceive it as party crashing. However, as others have pointed out, it's not nice for Thunderbird to use language which might be understood as unexpectedly blaming the user for "party crashing" without explaining the underlying email address problem which may create this impression in the first place. 

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #14)
> Re non-native speakers: there are localized builds, and I'm sure localizers can find appropriate verbiage for their language.

We already have evidence (e.g. for NL in comment 0) that translations are struggling with this idiomatic phrase, which won't make it any better.
But that's not even the most important point. **The point is, we don't sufficiently explain in normal words what the *actual* problem is: A problem about mismatch of email addresses used in the invite vs. the one you're about to use for sending.** The lack of explanation makes the dialog vague and confusing as users are reporting here.

> The inviter will not see the message, but only the result, which *is* party crashing. Sending from a non-invited address *is* inappropriate in most occasions.

True, it's inappropriate. I'd maintain that the real-life person who is invited is de facto *not* party crashing (because they have been invited), but only using a wrong email address, which in the end makes it *look* as if they are party-crashing. I think the subtle difference may matter for how we should communicate this in the dialog.

(In reply to Robert Rothenberg from comment #12)
> More explicit wording along the lines of "This invite was sent to a different email address than you are responding from. [snip]" explains what the issue is, without trying to be cute or funny.

Yes, some wording along those lines would be much better.

> "Were you actually invited to this event?"
No, we can safely assume that the person was invited.

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #11)
> (In reply to Thomas D. (:thomas8) from comment #9)
> > Jason had some critical user feedback from Twitter today which confirms my QA/UX analysis from comment 2: The current title and text of the dialog is just inappopriate (think business meetings), confusing, and doesn't explain the actual problem well at all
> 
> Hah, who said business needs to be all stiff! ;-)

Good point! :-)
However, the funerals and many other occasions certainly are, and they are not "parties" - so the idiomatic English phrase won't work well when it gets translated, and localizers won't be able to find a better translation as we don't explain what the problem is.

> > - after all, you *are* on the guest list, you *are* invited (so you are *not* party-crashing), but you're just about to answer with a different email address of yours which may mess things up for both you (attendee's privacy) and the organizer (who will find an unknown email in his guest list).
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions. I don't think we can say if any of that is true.

??

> What "you" is, is an identity. If you even got the invite as a direct email, it's perfectly possible, likely even, that it would be *seen* as party crashing by the inviter. He sent something to Alice, and all the sudden get a reply from Bob who he didn't knew existed. What would he do with this info?
> AFAIK the standards doesn't allow for a workflow where you can change identity like that.

Good point which just complements what I'm saying. We totally agree that answering with a different email than the one invited is bad practice, may violate invitee's privacy, and will confuse the organizer - and yes, *the organizer* may well perceive it as party crashing. However, as others have pointed out, it's not nice for Thunderbird to use language which might be understood as unexpectedly blaming the user for "party crashing" without explaining the underlying email address problem which may create this impression in the first place. 

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #14)
> Re non-native speakers: there are localized builds, and I'm sure localizers can find appropriate verbiage for their language.

We already have evidence (e.g. for NL in comment 0) that translations are struggling with this idiomatic phrase, which won't make it any better.
But that's not even the most important point. **The point is, we don't sufficiently explain in normal words what the *actual* problem is: A problem about mismatch of email addresses used in the invite vs. the one you're about to use for sending.** The lack of explanation makes the dialog vague and confusing as users are reporting here.

> The inviter will not see the message, but only the result, which *is* party crashing. Sending from a non-invited address *is* inappropriate in most occasions.

True, it's inappropriate. I'd maintain that the real-life person who is invited is de facto *not* party crashing (because they have been invited), but only using a wrong email address, which in the end makes it *look* as if they are party-crashing. I think the subtle difference may matter for how we should communicate this in the dialog.

(In reply to Robert Rothenberg from comment #12)
> More explicit wording along the lines of "This invite was sent to a different email address than you are responding from. [snip]" explains what the issue is, without trying to be cute or funny.

Yes, some wording along those lines would be much better.

> "Were you actually invited to this event?"
No, we can safely assume that the person was invited.

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #11)
> (In reply to Thomas D. (:thomas8) from comment #9)
> > Jason had some critical user feedback from Twitter today which confirms my QA/UX analysis from comment 2: The current title and text of the dialog is just inappopriate (think business meetings), confusing, and doesn't explain the actual problem well at all
> 
> Hah, who said business needs to be all stiff! ;-)

Good point! :-)
However, the funerals and many other occasions certainly are, and they are not "parties" - so the idiomatic English phrase won't work well when it gets translated, and localizers won't easily find a better translation as we don't explain what the problem is.

> > - after all, you *are* on the guest list, you *are* invited (so you are *not* party-crashing), but you're just about to answer with a different email address of yours which may mess things up for both you (attendee's privacy) and the organizer (who will find an unknown email in his guest list).
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions. I don't think we can say if any of that is true.

??

> What "you" is, is an identity. If you even got the invite as a direct email, it's perfectly possible, likely even, that it would be *seen* as party crashing by the inviter. He sent something to Alice, and all the sudden get a reply from Bob who he didn't knew existed. What would he do with this info?
> AFAIK the standards doesn't allow for a workflow where you can change identity like that.

Good point which just complements what I'm saying. We totally agree that answering with a different email than the one invited is bad practice, may violate invitee's privacy, and will confuse the organizer - and yes, *the organizer* may well perceive it as party crashing. However, as others have pointed out, it's not nice for Thunderbird to use language which might be understood as unexpectedly blaming the user for "party crashing" without explaining the underlying email address problem which may create this impression in the first place. 

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #14)
> Re non-native speakers: there are localized builds, and I'm sure localizers can find appropriate verbiage for their language.

We already have evidence (e.g. for NL in comment 0) that translations are struggling with this idiomatic phrase, which won't make it any better.
But that's not even the most important point. **The point is, we don't sufficiently explain in normal words what the *actual* problem is: A problem about mismatch of email addresses used in the invite vs. the one you're about to use for sending.** The lack of explanation makes the dialog vague and confusing as users are reporting here.

> The inviter will not see the message, but only the result, which *is* party crashing. Sending from a non-invited address *is* inappropriate in most occasions.

True, it's inappropriate. I'd maintain that the real-life person who is invited is de facto *not* party crashing (because they have been invited), but only using a wrong email address, which in the end makes it *look* as if they are party-crashing. I think the subtle difference may matter for how we should communicate this in the dialog.

(In reply to Robert Rothenberg from comment #12)
> More explicit wording along the lines of "This invite was sent to a different email address than you are responding from. [snip]" explains what the issue is, without trying to be cute or funny.

Yes, some wording along those lines would be much better.

> "Were you actually invited to this event?"
No, we can safely assume that the person was invited.

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #11)
> (In reply to Thomas D. (:thomas8) from comment #9)
> > Jason had some critical user feedback from Twitter today which confirms my QA/UX analysis from comment 2: The current title and text of the dialog is just inappopriate (think business meetings), confusing, and doesn't explain the actual problem well at all
> 
> Hah, who said business needs to be all stiff! ;-)

Good point! :-)
However, the funerals and many other occasions certainly are, and they are not "parties" - so the idiomatic English phrase won't work well when it gets translated, and localizers won't easily find a better translation as we don't explain what the problem is.

> > - after all, you *are* on the guest list, you *are* invited (so you are *not* party-crashing), but you're just about to answer with a different email address of yours which may mess things up for both you (attendee's privacy) and the organizer (who will find an unknown email in his guest list).
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions. I don't think we can say if any of that is true.

??

> What "you" is, is an identity. If you even got the invite as a direct email, it's perfectly possible, likely even, that it would be *seen* as party crashing by the inviter. He sent something to Alice, and all the sudden get a reply from Bob who he didn't knew existed. What would he do with this info?
> AFAIK the standards doesn't allow for a workflow where you can change identity like that.

Good point which just complements what I'm saying. We totally agree that answering with a different email than the one invited is bad practice, may violate invitee's privacy, and will confuse the organizer - and yes, *the organizer* may well perceive it as party crashing. However, as others have pointed out, it's not nice for Thunderbird to use language which might be understood as unexpectedly blaming the user for "party crashing" without explaining the underlying email address problem which may create this impression in the first place. 

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #14)
> Re non-native speakers: there are localized builds, and I'm sure localizers can find appropriate verbiage for their language.

We already have evidence (e.g. for NL in comment 0) that translations are struggling with this idiomatic phrase, which won't make it any better.
But that's not even the most important point. **The point is, we don't sufficiently explain in normal words what the *actual* problem is: A problem about mismatch of email addresses used in the invite vs. the one you're about to use for sending.** The lack of explanation makes the dialog vague and confusing as users are reporting here.

> The inviter will not see the message, but only the result, which *is* party crashing. Sending from a non-invited address *is* inappropriate in most occasions.

True, it's inappropriate. I'd maintain that the real-life person who is invited is de facto *not* party crashing (because they have been invited), but only using a wrong email address, which in the end makes it *look* as if they are party-crashing. I think the subtle difference may matter for how we should communicate this in the dialog.

(In reply to Robert Rothenberg from comment #12)
> More explicit wording along the lines of **"This invite was sent to a different email address than you are responding from. [snip]" explains what the issue is,** without trying to be cute or funny.

Yes, some wording along those lines would be much better.

> "Were you actually invited to this event?"
No, we can safely assume that the person was invited.

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #11)
> (In reply to Thomas D. (:thomas8) from comment #9)
> > Jason had some critical user feedback from Twitter today which confirms my QA/UX analysis from comment 2: The current title and text of the dialog is just inappopriate (think business meetings), confusing, and doesn't explain the actual problem well at all
> 
> Hah, who said business needs to be all stiff! ;-)

Good point! :-)
However, the funerals and many other occasions certainly are, and they are not "parties" - so the idiomatic English phrase won't work well when it gets translated, and localizers won't easily find a better translation as we don't explain what the problem is.

> > - after all, you *are* on the guest list, you *are* invited (so you are *not* party-crashing), but you're just about to answer with a different email address of yours which may mess things up for both you (attendee's privacy) and the organizer (who will find an unknown email in his guest list).
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions. I don't think we can say if any of that is true.

??

> What "you" is, is an identity. If you even got the invite as a direct email, it's perfectly possible, likely even, that it would be *seen* as party crashing by the inviter. He sent something to Alice, and all the sudden get a reply from Bob who he didn't knew existed. What would he do with this info?
> AFAIK the standards doesn't allow for a workflow where you can change identity like that.

Good point which just complements what I'm saying. We totally agree that answering with a different email than the one invited is bad practice, may violate invitee's privacy, and will confuse the organizer - and yes, *the organizer* may well perceive it as party crashing. However, as others have pointed out, it's not nice for Thunderbird to use language which might be understood as unexpectedly blaming the user for "party crashing" without explaining the underlying email address problem which may create this impression in the first place. 

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #14)
> Re non-native speakers: there are localized builds, and I'm sure localizers can find appropriate verbiage for their language.

We already have evidence (e.g. for NL in comment 0) that translations are struggling with this idiomatic phrase, which won't make it any better.
But that's not even the most important point. **The point is, we don't sufficiently explain in normal words what the *actual* problem is: A problem about mismatch of email addresses used in the invite vs. the one you're about to use for sending.** The lack of explanation makes the dialog vague and confusing as users are reporting here.

> The inviter will not see the message, but only the result, which *is* party crashing. Sending from a non-invited address *is* inappropriate in most occasions.

True, it's inappropriate. I'd maintain that the real-life person who is invited is de facto *not* party crashing (because they have been invited), but only using a wrong email address, which in the end makes it *look* as if they are party-crashing. I think the subtle difference may matter for how we should communicate this in the dialog.

(In reply to Robert Rothenberg from comment #12)
> More explicit wording along the lines of **"This invite was sent to a different email address than you are responding from. [snip]" explains what the issue is,** without trying to be cute or funny.

Yes, some wording along those lines would be much better.

> "Were you actually invited to this event?"

No, we can safely assume that the person was invited.