Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

View Address Book groups during group creation Apps
It seems difficult to keep track of who is in a group list in the Address Book as you are creating the group -- you have to select your "All" list to drag the names in, so you can't see the contents of the group. The best I could do is as follows:

Open the Address Book, and create the group you want. Drag the window somewhere out of the way. Go to Mail and select Show Addresses from the Windows menu. This opens another Address Book window as a floating pallette. Now look up your addressees and drag them to the group in the Mail Address pallette. They will show up shortly in the Address Book window that is also open.

This is still cumbersome compared with Entourage, where one can click and type a name in the group list, then select from a pulldown menu of matching choices. But it works reasonably well. Of course it would have been really great if Address Book would have imported my Entourage groups...
    •    
  • Currently 3.67 / 5
  You rated: 3 / 5 (3 votes cast)
 
[3,328 views]  

View Address Book groups during group creation | 1 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'View Address Book groups during group creation' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
A (perhaps) better way
Authored by: mithras on Oct 03, '02 05:16:38PM

Here's how I modify group members in Address Book:

1. Click on the group
2. Click once on a name in the list, then select Edit:Select All (or command-A).
3. Go back to the All list.
The members of the group will still be selected.
4. Use command-click to add new members to the group, or remove members.
5. Finally, select File:New Group From Selection

A new group with the newly revised list will be created. If you screwed up, the old group still exists; otherwise, you can delete the old one and rename the new one.

I agree, still not elegant. But not too bad!



[ Reply to This | # ]