On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:24:46 -0400, Luke Schierer wrote:
> no, we are just tired of requests to mimic winicq's ui.
I never asked anything of the sort. I simply asked to be able to choose
when to process an incoming message rather than have it pop-up
immediately. Did I even mention WinICQ (or any other piece of software
for that matter)? Sean immediately assumed I was some Windows user
wanting Gaim's UI to mimic WinICQ.
> personally i think its a horrible ui,
And I agree with you 110% complete. It is a complete bastarization of a
UI. But regardless of that, having a choice when to deal with incoming
messages is a nice (to some) feature.
> and i think that
> based on the fact that no one has wanted to work on it, that most of the
> rest of my co-developers feel the same.
No argument, at all.
> i feel that adding such an option would cause more confusion that
I am not asking that you change the default behaviour. I don't want
anyone to work any differently than they do now, unless they want to, and
then go to the effort to change the default behaviour.
> i think that the existing option to hide messages on send,
Yeah, I like that option, and use it. The reason why is because I have 8
virtual desktops spread across two displays. I flip-flop back and forth
between them constantly and having to keep flipping back to a particular
desktop to deal with an IM is just to disturbing. Being able to pop an
incoming IM onto the desktop I am currently on when I want to deal with it
is much more fluid.
As you can see this has got much more to do with ease of use than
mimicking some other interface.
> was at one point requested as much as the icq-like interface,
But why think of it as requesting something that is like some other design
than simply asking for something that makes somebody's work-flow process
> is a good
> example of the kind of confusion it would cause: i frequently get people
> asking for help because they have forgotten they selected that option.
Well, if you justifed the not-adding of any option based on the
intelligence of the dumbest users, then nothing would ever get added.
> every one feels free to critize our design decisions,
See, this is just it. I was not criticizing anything. I don't think
anything you have done is bad and worth criticizing. I was merely asking
for an additional option.
> esp. the ui
> decisions, but very few people are willing to contribute code.
Well, as a matter of fact, I tried to check out code today to do just
that, but SF's CVS is horribly non-functional as of late. They say it's
supposed to get better but simply trying to get a checkout is next to
> this constant barage, which
> everyone feels is just them trying to be "helpful" gets tiring because
> of its constancy.
Just don't take it critically. Don't assume that people are just trying
to mimic other UIs and think that perhaps the suggestion has a real reason
I mean seriously, can you not see why deciding when to deal with an
incoming message (think about being at work when your supervisor walks by
and your IM pops up a message as just one example -- mine is more a
work-flow issue however), or not wanting to have to keep going back to a
particular desktop just because that's where the ongoing IM window (i.e.
the close-on-send feature) is located?
Neither of these issues, for me anyway, has got anything to do with some
other UI working that way. They are both issues in continuing to be fluid