Here's one that should affect everyone who's had to work around email. In probably every company that relies on email, you'll see email sent out to the masses -- whether it's 5 or 500,000 people isn't the issue. Every once in a while, you'll get someone who decides to Reply All and say something that you will most likely not care about. Then, in what seems to be a snowball effect, others start doing the same. Then, you start getting the people who are just as annoyed with the junk email as you are and Reply All with a message of "Unsubscribe" or something similar to mark their disinterest and others' disrespect of their email inbox. The problem just gets worse from there. I think I speak for everyone when I say that there has got to be a work-around to this... besides weeding out the idiots.

One other scenario where I think the Reply All comes into play, but not necessarily as drastic of an annoyance, is when you BCC someone. As I'm sure you know, when you BCC someone on an email, those who receive the email don't know you sent it to the BCC'er(s), yet they still have the ability to Reply All. This can raise tensions, depending on the context. So, obviously, limiting the Reply All feature here would also be a good thing.

Basically, I'm thinking that Outlook needs an option to specify when the Reply All feature is available. This option alone could save a lot of pain. Obviously, someone can still do a manual Reply All, but that would help ensure that the user truly wants to reply to everyone, instead of not realizing who they're sending the reply to (namely, senior execs who you're not on a first name, fart joke basis with). I'd hate for there to be a dialog box that asks if a user is sure they want to Reply All, because I know a lot of people hate dialog boxes. But something does need to change.

The BCC scenario actually has 2 parts, in my mind. First and foremost, the receiver needs to know that they have been BCC'ed. If they don't know, then they are more likely to Reply All. Obviously, the second part is the actual Reply All. Perhaps a Fwd to All option might be used in the BCC scenario to signify that this person is a masked part of the conversation; however, that could still cause the same issues. My hopes for that would be that seeing the different text on the button would make the user realize what they're doing.

Honestly, tho, I think that any effort made to hide the capability would eventually come down to the user getting an option whether or not they want to Reply All or at least whether to respect the sender's choice to show/hide the feature. This is somewhat like the option to be notified when someone reads your email. I believe this was automatic in Outlook 2000; however, in Outlook 2002, the user received an option as to whether to send that notification back or not. Personally, I like that. I'm assuming any attempt to limit Reply All would come down to the same decision. Even so, at least that's something!

Edit: Outstanding news... this is already in Outlook 2007. The feature may be in earlier versions, but I'm not sure. In Outlook 2007, when you're creating a new message, click the Office button (Alt+F) and, under Permission submenu, check the Do Not Reply All option. It's a beautiful thing.

One thing that hasn't really caught on in the .NET world is the use of <thead>, <tbody>, and <tfoot> elements within tables. That's too bad because they can be very handy when working with styles. I'd like to see an option in all table-based controls to produce these elements. Perhaps a RenderTableSections property or something similar.

I've recently started doing all of my development work in virtual machines (VMs). I like it because it keeps my PC clean, whereas the VM might be laden with apps and utilities that I've tried out over time. We'll see how it pans out over time. The one thing I see right away that bothers me is that there's no shortcut to minimize a maximized VM. So, for instance, if I maximize the VM window using Right Alt+Enter, the only way to return to the host system is to Right Alt+Enter, move the window around so I can see the minimize icon on the window title bar, and click the minimize button. That's too many steps, in my opinion. I'd like a shortcut of some kind. Perhaps Right Alt+Win+D, which is based on the typical Win+D shortcut to show the desktop. Honestly, the key combo doesn't matter all that much to me as long as I have the capability.

I'm not sure if this is in Windows Vista (RC1) or Internet Explorer, but for some reason, when I attempt to download an offline course, I’m getting the following error:

---------------------------
Download Error
---------------------------
Path/File access error (75)http://offline.microsoftelearning.com/themes/olp/html/includes/popup.js
---------------------------
Retry   Cancel 
---------------------------

This works without fail in XP with IE7. Retry doesn’t seem to affect it any and neither does closing open applications (not that I expected it to). I also tried to add the site to the Trusted Sites group, but that didn’t seem to work, either.

When downloading files or accepting ActiveX components in a web page, IE forces the page to refresh. This refresh can change the state of the website, which is very annoying and can occasionally, result in an endless loop, never allowing you to get what you need done. I've actually had this endless loop problem on MSDN subscriber downloads, which makes it even worse. This instance was because of frames, if that helps.

I believe Firefox has the same refresh requirement, but I'm not sure. Theirs is different, tho. Obviously, they don't use ActiveX, so that's not an issue. Instead, their acceptance comes with installing extensions -- the equivalent to ActiveX controls. When you install a new extension, you have to approve the site you're downloading it from. I can't remember if this forces a complete refresh or if it simply means you have to click the link again. Either way, it's pointless.

I'm assuming that IE handles ActiveX by removing the HTML from the page before displaying it. There has got to be a way to dynamically re-insert this HTML after the ActiveX has been approved. Popups might be a bit harder, because they're all about scripting that's getting blocked. As far as I can think of, there's no way to tell what scripts have run which led to the popup being called. On top of that, attempting to run the scripts again may corrupt the data or cause other data integrity issues. Actually, I guess the scripts can be parsed to determine their meaning, but that would be a major effort and wouldn't even touch on the second issue.

All-in-all, I'm not sure how much can be done about this, but something needs to change. I'd love to take this on as a project, but I think I need to tackle a few other simpler IE extensions, first.

When in Visual Studio with a project open, if you opt to add a new item to the project, you are presented with the Add New Item dialog. This dialog box lists a bunch of different types of files you can create, as you might imagine. The problem I have with it is that it's not in alphabetical order. Well, actually, that's not the problem I really have, but it's part of what leads to the problem. The first thing I do when I get to this screen is start pressing keys to toggle thru items. If I'm wanting to create a web.config file, for instance, I start pressing w until I get there. How this dialog works, tho, is it remembers each keystroke and wants me to start typing out the full word. So, if I type ww, hoping to go to the second w* item, the dialog box thinks I'm looking for something that starts with ww. So, instead, I should be typing web c (for Web Configuration File) to finally get to the web.config file option. This drives me crazy.

Admittedly, this isn't the first time I've seen this type of list traversal, but it's most definitely not the most widely used method. The method in which I assumed is by far the most wildely used. Check Windows Explorer, for instance.

I imagine that I wouldn't have an issue if the list was in alphabetical order, so perhaps that's the answer. At least if it was in alphabetical order, I could look at the screen and deduce what's happening. Currently, it seems like it's messing up and doesn't know what to do.

One suggestion I have to resolve this would be to use some type of dynamic search capability like the Vista start menu. If I see what I'm typing and the non-matching results are disappearing, then I can better deduce how I should interact with the dialog. Personally, I think this method of interaction will drive a new wave of digging thru vast features.

Well, that's that. As far as I can tell there are 3 options: (1) provide an option as to how the list traversal works; (2) alphabetically order the list; and/or (3) implement a dynamic search. And, perhaps the right answer -- whatever that means -- is to do all 3.

I'm not sure if this one is a bug or a feature change. I'd like to think it's the former because it's very annoying, but who knows. I'm running Vista RC1 (build 5600), so we'll see when RC2 (or whatever the next publicized build is) comes out.

Here's the synopsis: When browsing directories in Windows Explorer, if you press the Back button, the first directory is selected instead of the one you were last on. This can be rather annoying if you're used to traversing directories with the arrow keys. For instance, let's say you're at the root of the C: drive. You arrow down to the C:\Users directory and press Enter. Now, press Alt+Left (or click the Back button). The first thing you'll notice is that the C:\Users directory is still highlighted, as you would expect; however, if you press the down arrow, you'll notice that focus is moved to the second directory, instead of the one below C:\Users. Maybe it's just me, but this is contrary to how it should work.

Resolved in Windows Vista official release.

This is a major aggravation for me. I see two "business"-use purposes for Live Local: (1) to obtain directions; and, (2) to look for places you might be interested in going. Sure, there are others, but these are the two that I think most people will be productively using the system for.

With that said, Live Local only really covers one of these fully -- obtaining directions. I am happy with its direction-giving, for the most part, but I am absolutely left to my own devices when it comes to the latter usage. Sure, if I know exactly what I'm looking for (i.e. fast food), I can do a quick search to find where the local McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Wendy's are, but what if I want to search for something a little more abstract. Let's just say furniture. Do a search for furniture stores and you'll get a good enough list of places. That's all fine and dandy if you know the places and what they're all about, but what happens when you've never heard of one? You'll want to visit their website to see what they're all about and what they might have to offer instead of wasting time and money (in gas) driving across town. Is it so much to ask that there be a link to a website so I can browse directly to it? I hate to say it, but Google Maps does it and I loved that feature. Now, I have to open a new window (read: tab) and search Live myself. That's just aggravating.

Ya know, in a world -- and especially a product -- more and more driven by the concepts of Web 2.0, you'd think that this type of thing would be a gimme. I'm not sure why it was left out. Hell, grasping a hold of the Web 2.0 concept a bit more, I'll even go as far as to say that I want to see ratings on the map results, as well. Show me an average rating of what people have said about the place. Let me give it my own rating, while we're at it. From there, if ratings are what I'm interested in, I can take a look at what people have said. I want to say that Yahoo does this. Wouldn't it be nice to bring both of these together into our product? Ok, that was rhetorical and I'm probably going a bit far, but you get the idea.

I love tabbed browsing, plain and simple. I just can't live without it. There is one thing, however, that's become an issue. For simplicity in explaining the situation, I'll use a scenario that we all use (or, at least should be using): Microsoft Update.

First thing's first, make sure you have 2+ tabs open. Next, browse to Microsoft Update, select at least one update to install, and start the installation. When Microsoft Update starts the install, a dialog box appears. As it should, this dialog box doesn't allow you to interact with its parent page. Unfortunately, it doesn't let you interact with any page. This should be changed so dialog boxes only limit your access to the web page and not the entire application (IE). Primarily, I want to be able to switch tabs and do other things while the download/install is in progress. Currently, to do this, I must open Microsoft Update in its own window.

One thing I try to always do is finish my downloads before restarting my machine. I've never had a problem with restarting downloads, but it's just easier to do things that way. I would love to see the ability to resume downloads when Windows is forced to reboot.

This, combined with my last FTM comment (minimize to tray), would make the FTM user experience a lot better for me.

I would love to see the File Transfer Manager support the ability to minimize to the tray. I hate seeing windows like that open. You'll rarely care about switching to them, yet they take up room on your task bar.

This one has irked me since it first came out in Windows 95 -- I think that's when it was introduced. It even caused virus problems because users didn't know what type of file they were opening since the file would say something like, "ImNotAVirus.doc" with the ".exe" hidden. I never fell for anything like this, but I can see how people would. Yet, I'm amazed that this feature is still in Windows -- even in the latest Vista build. I don't necessarily have a problem with the option, but don't make it default to hidden. Maybe this is just the developer in me, but I can't stand when I can't see my file extensions. I just don't trust the system enough. This has nothing to do with my trust in Windows; instead, it is more about having control over file names.

Here's an example of why I hate it so much. Let's just say I want to create a new HTML file. First, I'll create a new text file via the context menu (right click > New > Text Document). When the file is created, I get the option to name it. With extensions hidden, you have no ability to change the name to "*.htm". This is just one example. Let's say someone wants to hide a file by changing its extension. Granted, not the best way to hide a file, but I've seen it happen.

Again, maybe it's just because I'm a bit more techie than most, but I absolutely despise this feature and can't wait for it to either be unchecked by default or die a slow death altogether... neither of which am I very hopeful for.

All of the popular weblog tools support assigning multiple categories to each post. SharePoint's web part should be no different. Typically, I stay away from any tool that limits you in that respect.

When you view source in Internet Explorer, Notepad typically comes up. Now, I know you can customize this, and that's great. The problem is, why should it be a customization you have to make? I think IE should know enough to format and colorize the source.

On a side, but related note, if you want to beat Firefox in this respect, make the damn thing editable, too. I hate that about firefox. While its color coding and inline search make the source viewer great to work with, there are times I want to edit it -- even if it's a small format change to make it easier to read. I get aggravated every time I try that.