One would think. Although I've been surprised by how many technology firms I've worked with (for example) that have pretty decent products and yet just terrible IT departments. Often, it seems, this is a product of two factors: 1, inside a technology firm, IT is often not seen as the prestigious career path, and 2, often IT ignorance is compensated by technically minded staff. I've worked with several software firms, for instance, where the IT department was essentially there for the marketing folks; the developers all ran their own mail servers because they preferred more control over the technology.
Although obviously this varies with each institution. I definitely see your point.
Well, it depends on the situation right? We certainly can't expect any system to change if people aren't willing to at least voice their concerns or, even better, actively push for change. Systems and organizations don't usually change themselves - at least not towards order:). At the same time, if it's considerably less work to discard-and-replace then I'd expect most people to go with the path of least resistance - unless, of course, there is some other variable tying them to the status quo (existing investment, loyalty, a sense of ownership, relationships, etc). Sometimes the best way to push for change is to opt out, withdraw your support. Other times you just don't care enough to fight for change.
But this is getting pretty abstract, isn't it? Certainly my answer differs if we're talking about my video card, my email service, my university, my lover, my neighborhood, my family, my local government or my federal government.
That's a really good point. "Well, yes, I am aware that the school I went to doesn't have a good reputation and, in point of fact, I didn't actually learn all that much while I was there. But I want you to know that they had really awesome email services!"
You're paying $10K+USD/Year for school. Yeah, it'd be nice if that came with a solid email package but if it doesn't just get a free gmail account.
If you changed schools every time a school did something stupid, you might as well save yourself a lot of time and just stop pursuing your education. Honestly.
IAWTC. Also, the proposal of changing universities because of an email policy is ridiculous. That's like telling people who think the United States Postal Service to move outside the United States. If we were all to hold our life to such idealistic standards, we'd have nowhere to go.
Non-Beta Hotmail or Windows Live? I just signed up for a new account using IE7 on Windows 2003 Server and got the same use case as outlined above (Hotmail -> Windows Live).
It may be different on Vista. I know that during the Vista beta users were automatically enrolled in the Live.com Beta. It may be that with the release of Vista live.com (and subsequently mail.live.com) is deemed RTW for Vista users. Curious.
"schools should teach choice, and encourage experimentation"
That's idealistic at best and more likely just plain naive. In my experience, professors are usually about preaching their individual philosophies on their young, malleable students. Especially in the liberal arts schools. I'm familiar with the ideal you're talking about but it's implemented just about as well as the idea of "Life, Liberty and Happiness" is in the average modern day Democracy.
Not saying people should ask for more, continue to demand more. But let's be realistic about who we're talking about here.
That's incorrect. If you go to mail.live.com (at least via FF on a Mac) you'll get forwarded to hotmail. Once you sign in to (or, in my case, create) your Hotmail account you'll be given the option to try Windows Live Mail beta. Once you confirm, you'll be brought to a mail.live.com address with a banner graphic that reads "Windows Live Mail Beta".
Familiarity is one of the key concepts of usability. Something that is familiar, no matter how backwards, promises to be more usable. Vista, for the most part, builds off its predecessors. It's like having a cluttered office - and then one day someone comes in and cleans it without you knowing. It may not have been "usable" (by an objective third party perspective) before, but it's certainly not usable (by your own perspective) now.
That said, I really like some of the design concepts in Vista, although they certainly have taken getting used to. For example, breaking the file path in Windows File Explorer into breadcrumbs each with a drop-down menu makes traversing the file system much faster for your average user - at least once they get used to it.
I love Outlook. My primary workstations are both Macs and I'm quite pleased with them - but the one application I miss on Windows is Outlook. I think it's a really solid email client.
"Imagine for a second that the new version of Slashdot killed off the majority of CSS support and only allowed table based layouts. The web design world would be up in arms! Well, that's exactly what the CURRENT version of Slashdot does to Forum Response Designers."
Ok, maybe that's taking this too far. But honestly, talking about web standards: what is and how can it be qualified as HTML?
Most web mail systems I've played with put serious restrictions on HTML mail, usually in the interest of sand-boxing them from the overall webmail interface. Many of these (Hotmail, Yahoo... possibly Gmail?) take out CSS-P elements and put certain restrictions on inline CSS. "Email designers" have long had to test "special" web standards for HTML-based email because, even more so than browsers themselves, these interfaces create additional restrictions that are rarely documented or standards-based.
This isn't to say that I like the decision, but it is certainly par for the course of email rendering.
Slashdot Mirror
Although obviously this varies with each institution. I definitely see your point.
But this is getting pretty abstract, isn't it? Certainly my answer differs if we're talking about my video card, my email service, my university, my lover, my neighborhood, my family, my local government or my federal government.
You're paying $10K+USD/Year for school. Yeah, it'd be nice if that came with a solid email package but if it doesn't just get a free gmail account.
If you changed schools every time a school did something stupid, you might as well save yourself a lot of time and just stop pursuing your education. Honestly.
IAWTC. Also, the proposal of changing universities because of an email policy is ridiculous. That's like telling people who think the United States Postal Service to move outside the United States. If we were all to hold our life to such idealistic standards, we'd have nowhere to go.
It may be different on Vista. I know that during the Vista beta users were automatically enrolled in the Live.com Beta. It may be that with the release of Vista live.com (and subsequently mail.live.com) is deemed RTW for Vista users. Curious.
That's idealistic at best and more likely just plain naive. In my experience, professors are usually about preaching their individual philosophies on their young, malleable students. Especially in the liberal arts schools. I'm familiar with the ideal you're talking about but it's implemented just about as well as the idea of "Life, Liberty and Happiness" is in the average modern day Democracy.
Not saying people should ask for more, continue to demand more. But let's be realistic about who we're talking about here.
That's incorrect. If you go to mail.live.com (at least via FF on a Mac) you'll get forwarded to hotmail. Once you sign in to (or, in my case, create) your Hotmail account you'll be given the option to try Windows Live Mail beta. Once you confirm, you'll be brought to a mail.live.com address with a banner graphic that reads "Windows Live Mail Beta".
Familiarity is one of the key concepts of usability. Something that is familiar, no matter how backwards, promises to be more usable. Vista, for the most part, builds off its predecessors. It's like having a cluttered office - and then one day someone comes in and cleans it without you knowing. It may not have been "usable" (by an objective third party perspective) before, but it's certainly not usable (by your own perspective) now. That said, I really like some of the design concepts in Vista, although they certainly have taken getting used to. For example, breaking the file path in Windows File Explorer into breadcrumbs each with a drop-down menu makes traversing the file system much faster for your average user - at least once they get used to it.
I love Outlook. My primary workstations are both Macs and I'm quite pleased with them - but the one application I miss on Windows is Outlook. I think it's a really solid email client.
"Imagine for a second that the new version of Slashdot killed off the majority of CSS support and only allowed table based layouts. The web design world would be up in arms! Well, that's exactly what the CURRENT version of Slashdot does to Forum Response Designers."
Ok, maybe that's taking this too far. But honestly, talking about web standards: what is and how can it be qualified as HTML?
Most web mail systems I've played with put serious restrictions on HTML mail, usually in the interest of sand-boxing them from the overall webmail interface. Many of these (Hotmail, Yahoo... possibly Gmail?) take out CSS-P elements and put certain restrictions on inline CSS. "Email designers" have long had to test "special" web standards for HTML-based email because, even more so than browsers themselves, these interfaces create additional restrictions that are rarely documented or standards-based.
This isn't to say that I like the decision, but it is certainly par for the course of email rendering.