1635207 - Implement sorting and sizing options for recipient pills (enable single-column/multi-column/tabular/grid layout options)

Status: NEW

(Thunderbird :: Message Compose Window, enhancement)

Description

[Alessandro Castellani [:aleca]]

We should implement the ability to sort and size the pills with some predefined options in order to allow the user to better visualize long list of addresses.

Sorting (ASC/DESC)

• Alphabetically by name
• Alphabetically by domain extension

Sizing

• Force 1, 2, or 3 pills per row

Comment 1

[Alessandro Castellani [:aleca]]

Attachment: sorting.png

Here's a quick mock-up to explore the possibility of implementing a sorting/ordering option in the message compose.

The button can be positioned inline the Identity field, on the right most location in order to create visual separation with the "More" icon due to the different context.

In case of complaints like "That button is too far away on the right if the compose window is full screen on large monitor", the reasoning is that we deliberately want this button out of the way.
It's not part of the main focus ring, and it's a marginal option not affecting the core functionalities of the compose window.

I also took some screenshots to see how pills look when forced sized.
Those examples were achieved with 2 lines of CSS. So good!

Comment 2

[Richard Marti (:Paenglab)]

Comment on attachment 9145669 [details]
sorting.png

Looks good. Thanks. I'm okay with this button on top right as it's not a every time used button.

Are the selections in this button stored for the next time the composer opens?

Comment 3

[Thomas D. (:thomas8)]

Comment on attachment 9145669 [details]
sorting.png

Now *this* is awesome! :-))
Few notes for polishing.

- Let's please fix at least the UI overlap problem of bug 1602477 when dragging recipient pane to minimal height.
- Maybe have a default height (internally max-height), which can be adjusted (for current message only) by dragging either way. I think adding 50 recipients in 1 column mode shouldn't cover 90% of my screen by default.
- If the button is not in default tab focus ring (which *might* be ok), how is it accessible via keyboard (given that there are no menus, and no app menu button - what happened to the menu options?)

Comment 4

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Comment on attachment 9145669 [details]
sorting.png

I think we need to consider a bit why we'd add such functionality in the first place. Why would anyone want to sort the recipients? In many real case scenarios it's also easily the case that your addresses are not clean at all: some will have displaynames, some not. Some will have junk in the display name, some will not. Some will have firstname lastname backwards etc. That is, sorting "alphabetically" doesn't help.

I don't think that's a thing I *ever* saw any reason to do. Given that, adding a button to it seems strange. And how would it work over many different addressing fields?

Comment 5

[Alessandro Castellani [:aleca]]

If the button is not in default tab focus ring (which might be ok), how is it accessible via keyboard (given that there are no menus, and no app menu button - what happened to the menu options?)

Yeah, that's just a proposal, not sure if it might be OK or not, and if it might need some dedicated shortcuts for all those options.

I think we need to consider a bit why we'd add such functionality in the first place. Why would anyone want to sort the recipients?

The request was raised by some users in the TB-UX mailing list.
The reasoning is that when dealing with lots of recipients, it's hard to skim through them and be sure everyone was included as each pill has a different size by default. Offering the option to order them in list of 1, 2, or 3 columns makes it easier to quickly read them as the spacing is consistent.

In many real case scenarios it's also easily the case that your addresses are not clean at all: some will have displaynames, some not. Some will have junk in the display name, some will not. Some will have firstname lastname backwards etc. That is, sorting "alphabetically" doesn't help.

I wouldn't worry about that as the sorting would use the initial letter of what's available, so if the email has a display name, we use that, if it's just an email address we use that, etc.
The sorting by domain extension can be helpful to group long lists of recipients with the same domain (eg. thunderbird.net).

I don't think that's a thing I ever saw any reason to do. Given that, adding a button to it seems strange. And how would it work over many different addressing fields?

Yeah, maybe a button is a bit too much for something that it's marginal and might be useful to a portion of our users.
What about adding it in a menu? Maybe in the Edit or View menu?
I was thinking that one option affects all the addressing fields, without the necessity of creating a dedicated option per field.

Comment 6

[Thomas D. (:thomas8)]

• Column layout options, especially single-column, is key for transitional acceptance of the new recipient area and for many high-volume use cases including enterprise; requested often.
• Sorting options also key for high-volume use cases, incl. enterprise.
• Per-field might be too fine-grained, but might allow to hide this in context menu. Would requires per-message persistence I believe.
• I do like the button to make this awesome feature discoverable; also depends on our choices for persistence.
• Thinking about persistence. Recipient area is one of the most crucial parts of our UI, so we should not hesitate to add options in settings where helpful. Some choices:
  • central default settings in options + per-message setting from button (which would need to be remembered for that particular message).
  • remember UI-state from one message for all subsequent compositions until changed again. Does that make sense? Normally not. Maybe. Easier to implement.
• Note: Per above reasons, flexible layout of recipient area matters. Private and business use can happen on same TB installation. Private: No need for 1-column layout. Business: Need 1-column layout for my 200 recipients mailing list. Or maybe I just want single-column once in a while. Or maybe I just prefer 3-column for all of my accounts. Different users, different needs. Let's try to serve as many as we can.

Comment 7

[Alessandro Castellani [:aleca]]

I'd like to re-open the conversation regarding this implementation, but by simplifying it a bit.

Postpone the sorting
I think we should postpone the sorting as it's not super straightforward and comes with a lot of edge cases that need further exploring in a dedicated bug. Things like what happens when the sorting is enforced and users drag and drop pills, or create a new pill with a name that needs to be pushed in first position?

Focus only on sizing
The sizing implementation is something that can be done with a few lines of CSS, and as a first implementation can be something really simple.

• No pref or saved state, this change needs to be activated manually at every new compose.
• 1 option that affects all addressing rows.

The "Sizing" feature has been requested in the past in order to improve the readability of large amount of pills, and even with only 10 pills, having the ability to force their size into a consistently paced spacing improves a lot their readability and improves error prevention.

Comment 8

[Eyal Rozenberg]

1. If sorting is implemented - no auto-sorting please!
2. While sorting and sizing complement each other somewhat - they're really qite distinct features, I'm not sure they should live in the same bug here on BMO.
3. I wold definitely like having all my pills equi-sized and fitting into several columns, by default (but as something you can control from the preferences).
4. About Magnus' question:

I think we need to consider a bit why we'd add such functionality in the first place. Why would anyone want to sort the recipients?

I would sometimes like to sort the recipients. Either I've added a bunch of them and I want to remember exactly which those were; or perhaps - I replied-all, and I want a better idea of who I'm writing than just a jumble of addresses.

On the other hand, if there was a search interface (i.e. typing somewhere in order to find a pill) I'm not sure I would feel sorting is necessary.

Ah, another reason for sorting is aesthetics / pedantic / OCD nature: You might want your addressees to "look neat". And a final reason would be avoiding giving away any information through the way you ordered your addressees (e.g. you don't want people to know who you thought of first).

See also my "compare addresses stripped & sorted" feature in Remove Duplicate Messages.