Outlook 2007 - field choices unchanged for almost 10 years old

[Mike]

Outlook has not changed it's field schema (the choices for fields) or added
the ability to edit or customize the schema since Outlook 97. I never heard
why the rather major feature of Outlook remains stuck in the 1990's.
Examples: the 3 email addresses and 3 physical addresses have not been
changed, and it is essentially impossible (without a great deal of
programming) to add these fields. You can call the fields 'email' or
'address' but they will just be text fields and will not be useable like
Outlook's built in data types. Same goes for the phone number fields (who
uses "Telex" anymore?). Yes, you can add a variety of different field types
but they're barely usable (aside from displaying them, you can do very
little with them) and the're not relational. This is one feature I've
always liked about Act (since, I believe, version 2 for DOS Act fields have
been more or less relational and very customizable); if it weren't for
numerous other features that I like about Outlook I probably would have
switched by now. Why not add the Outlook data types as choices for new
fields? This would, seemingly, be a fairly simple thing to do. I've been
requesting this change for years ([email protected]), but thus far no one
appears to be listening. Perhaps - just perhaps - this could be a feature
for Outlook 2007...

Mike

 

[Jen]

I agree - I would also like to see a field for Blackberry, since everyone and
their dog seems to have one now and there isn't really an appropriate place
for the info. (Yes I could store all Blackberry numbers in one, otherwise
unused, field, but then I can never remember which one I've used...)

 

[Mike]

How about emails - some people don't have one (so the fields are wasted),
while others not only have more than 3, they have a pager email, a couple
free email accounts, an SMS account, etc. - I have no way to add this
information in a way that's actually useful. While making the fields
relational might be too large a task at this point, adding another data type
category (eg, Outlook Field) to custom fields would not be.

Mike