Comments on: Why is Low higher than High? http://blog.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/archives/2008/01/27/why-is-low-higher-than-high/ The Revd Gareth J M Saunders' weblog Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:56:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: Gareth J M Saunders http://blog.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/archives/2008/01/27/why-is-low-higher-than-high/#comment-56927 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:20:17 +0000 http://blog.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/archives/2008/01/27/why-is-low-higher-than-high/#comment-56927 In Outlook 2003 within Mail they are side-by-side, as Dave says: High to the left of Low. However, in Tasks they are as shown above. In Outlook 2003 within Mail they are side-by-side, as Dave says: High to the left of Low. However, in Tasks they are as shown above.

]]> by: Dave http://blog.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/archives/2008/01/27/why-is-low-higher-than-high/#comment-56829 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:31:13 +0000 http://blog.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/archives/2008/01/27/why-is-low-higher-than-high/#comment-56829 Tend to only use 'low' when it is the equivalent to FYI. It may just be an organisational culture point but it helps to sort out the urgents from the not so's. As for higher or lower - for me they are side by side (high on the left). Tend to only use ‘low’ when it is the equivalent to FYI. It may just be an organisational culture point but it helps to sort out the urgents from the not so’s.

As for higher or lower - for me they are side by side (high on the left).

]]> by: Ricky http://blog.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/archives/2008/01/27/why-is-low-higher-than-high/#comment-56752 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:18:11 +0000 http://blog.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/archives/2008/01/27/why-is-low-higher-than-high/#comment-56752 Has anyone ever used 'low'? I don't think I ever have. If something is of low importance, why even send it? Has anyone ever used ‘low’? I don’t think I ever have.

If something is of low importance, why even send it?

]]>