From: Thijs K. <ki...@sq...> - 2007-02-09 09:32:58
|
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 12:06 -0800, Paul Lesniewski wrote: > To my knowledge, this was NOT discussed here. One person asked about > it, but it never was discussed. I know you've seen all the heated > discussions about this in the past, so I would have appreciated if you > could bring this up first before making this change. Well, I brought it up on this list (30 Jan). I indeed now see your question about it which I appearently did not answer, sorry for that. But apart from that, there's been no opposition against my proposal at all. I've searched the list archives then and now but cannot find a reference to heated discussions about this. I've been a developer for many years now and also do not remember any controversy over it. The fact that there haven't been heated responses to my 30 Jan mail gives me a hint that this is not a controversial issue. If you know of any discussion, please provide a reference as my search doesn't find it. Back to the specific change at hand, to reply to your question. I think it's a good change, because: - SquirrelMail is already clearly branded without it. - We do not need to clutter *every* page of *every* user with a link to www.squirrelmail.org. Normally users do not need to go to our web site, so providing a prominent link on each and every page on the interface is complete overkill. (I think this is the most important argument) - To replace the removed reference, there's now a modest copyright footer, which resembles the way many other web applications and sites currently put credits. It's also still present under Help - Introduction. - It further reduces the risk of unknowing users contacting the wrong party for support. Our old site already had texts about user support that users didn't read. Yes, it has been improved, but it is a utopy to believe that everyone will now read it, as many people didn't read texts before. This is about reducing chances. If you disagree, I'd be glad to hear what would speak in favour of the link, because I don't know convincing arguments to keep it. thanks, Thijs |