On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:50:23 -0500, Sean Egan <sean.egan@...> wr=
ote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 14:51 -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >However, as Sean stated, the users don't care if a buddy is permitted
> >or denied if that doesn't block or allow him, that's why I think all
> >what I've just stated should be only internal. In the UI the main
> >actions will be "allow" and "block". And as KingAnt purposed if the
> >current privacy setting doesn't allow the selected action to be done
> >then the user will be asked if to change the privacy setting
> >automagically in order to allow what he has just stated to do.
>=20
> I don't think we should even bother asking. If you choose to block or
> allow a user, there is ALWAYS a combination of mode and list that will
> have the same exact effect as your current mode and list with that one
> other person blocked. e.g. I'm allow all, I block LSchiere. I change to
> "Block below" and put "LSchiere" on the list. Then I block KingAnt, just
> put "KingAnt" on the list. There's no need to bother asking if it's
> going to have the effect they want with no other consequences.
The only issue I see is when you have "block all" and you allow
someone, then you are not blocking everybody, but only the people
inside your deny list which might not be the expected behaviour.
> >The problem comes with things like Yahoo's "invisible", ICQ's
> >"visible" or Jabber's "authorization". They don't have neither
> >"permit", "deny", "block" or "allow" concepts, it's more like
> >visibility stuff. What they really do is to modify the way our buddies
> >see us, and non-buddies and will be useful if we provide feedback
> >(emblem + tooltip text), a way to change it (menu item + dialog) *and*
> >probably a dialog where you can see all the buddies in that list.
>=20
> I have to admit that I'm not the best person for opinions on privacy, as
> I don't use it at all. However, I think the best solution would be to
> have it seem as close to AIM's as possible. The solution you go into
> below is very drawn out and complex, and I have to wonder if there's not
> a simpler way.
This solution is as extensible and complete as possible, that's why
it's complex. Narrowing the options will make it simpler.
Something like a simple menu item for the buddy that allows to
enable/disable that mode would do it.
> >I think probably we should have something like a "View Buddy List" or
> >something, where we can see all our buddies in a certain list. We
> >might select an account and then the list we want to see and voil=E1. We
> >will also probably want add, remove buddies into that list or maybe do
> >something else, like remove from the buddy list.
> >
> Perhaps you can explain what you mean here a bit better.
Now that I read again I wonder were was my exposed point.
Let's suppose I want to see all the buddies in my "Invisible" list,
which is something particular to a certain protocol. I would go to
this window where I can choose the different modes, or lists, and then
I'll be able to see all the buddies with that mode, and add/remove
them from the list. The same will hold for any buddy mode, or list.
--=20
Felipe Contreras
|
