From: Brian J. M. <br...@in...> - 2003-06-22 12:50:22
|
Hello all. I am using gaim 0.64. It's one nice piece of software. With one possible exception however. I cannot seem to figure out if I can disable the functionality of popping up an IM window when an IM is received. I much prefer the idea of simply flagging in the buddy list that a message has been received from a buddy and having to do something (like double-click on the buddy) to read the message. It's much less intrusive that way. Can it be done currently in 0.64? If not how about an option to do it in a future release? b. |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2003-06-22 15:07:06
|
Turn off the option to raise the window when you recieve messages. luke On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 08:47:07AM -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > Hello all. > > I am using gaim 0.64. It's one nice piece of software. With one possible > exception however. I cannot seem to figure out if I can disable the > functionality of popping up an IM window when an IM is received. > > I much prefer the idea of simply flagging in the buddy list that a message > has been received from a buddy and having to do something (like > double-click on the buddy) to read the message. It's much less intrusive > that way. > > Can it be done currently in 0.64? If not how about an option to do it in > a future release? > > b. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU > Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. > Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! > INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php > _______________________________________________ > Gaim-devel mailing list > Gai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-devel -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2003-06-22 16:30:50
|
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 11:05, Luke Schierer wrote: > Turn off the option to raise the window when you recieve messages. > luke No, that's not his issue. This is a I-for-some-reason-think-that-WinICQ-has-a-really-great-UI person who doesn't want IM windows when he gets an IM. You can turn on the "queue messages" option in the system tray plugin, which will sorta do what you want. -s. |
From: Brian J. M. <br...@in...> - 2003-06-22 18:45:57
|
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:30:46 -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 11:05, Luke Schierer wrote: >> Turn off the option to raise the window when you recieve messages. >> luke > > No, that's not his issue. Most correct. Luke's suggestion does not quite address the problem I have. > This is a > I-for-some-reason-think-that-WinICQ-has-a-really-great-UI person who > doesn't want IM windows when he gets an IM. It's a matter of dealing with incoming messages when *I* want to deal with them, not necessarily when they are sent (and all covering my desktop). This is the same argument as to why e-mail is so much better than the telephone. The telephone is a very interrupting device, so is popping up IM windows when messages come in. > You can turn on the "queue messages" option in the system tray plugin, > which will sorta do what you want. You mean "Hide new messages until tray icon is clicked"? I guess I don't get to choose which buddy's incoming message I want to read though, do I? b. |
From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2003-06-22 19:01:30
|
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:45, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > It's a matter of dealing with incoming messages when *I* want to deal with > them, not necessarily when they are sent (and all covering my desktop). > This is the same argument as to why e-mail is so much better than the > telephone. The telephone is a very interrupting device, so is popping up > IM windows when messages come in. The obligatory defending-my-gui-preference explanation. > You mean "Hide new messages until tray icon is clicked"? I guess I don't > get to choose which buddy's incoming message I want to read though, do I? No. After Robot101's Queue thing, though, you will. Most likely. -s. |
From: Brian J. M. <br...@in...> - 2003-06-22 21:11:10
|
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:01:27 -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > The obligatory defending-my-gui-preference explanation. Why are you so hostile about this? Have I offended you in some way just because I wish to process incoming messages in a manner different than you? I harbor no personal grudge agsinst anybody because of the way it works currently. Why do you have to take it so personally that I want to deal with things differently than you? Maybe you like being interrupted from whatever you are doing just to know that somebody wants to say hi. I prefer to deal with those things when I can take a break from what I am doing. Why is this a personal sore spot with you? > No. After Robot101's Queue thing, though, you will. Most likely. Well then I will just have to wait for that then. I will bother you no longer. ~sheesh~ b. |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2003-06-22 21:25:52
|
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 05:11:00PM -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:01:27 -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > > > The obligatory defending-my-gui-preference explanation. > > Why are you so hostile about this? Have I offended you in some way just > because I wish to process incoming messages in a manner different than > you? I harbor no personal grudge agsinst anybody because of the way it > works currently. Why do you have to take it so personally that I want to > deal with things differently than you? no, we are just tired of requests to mimic winicq's ui. we get one about once a month. personally i think its a horrible ui, 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. > > Maybe you like being interrupted from whatever you are doing just to know > that somebody wants to say hi. I prefer to deal with those things when I > can take a break from what I am doing. Why is this a personal sore spot > with you? i feel that adding such an option would cause more confusion that benifit, i think that the existing option to hide messages on send, that was at one point requested as much as the icq-like interface, 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. > > > No. After Robot101's Queue thing, though, you will. Most likely. > > Well then I will just have to wait for that then. > > I will bother you no longer. > > ~sheesh~ every one feels free to critize our design decisions, esp. the ui decisions, but very few people are willing to contribute code. some of that is legit: there are alot of patches, a fraction of which are good, that are sitting, seemingly unlooked at, in the tracker, but MOST of it is just people wanting their particular favorite idea implemented but unwilling to learn to do it themselves. this constant barage, which everyone feels is just them trying to be "helpful" gets tiring because of its constancy. luke -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2003-06-22 21:44:47
|
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 17:11, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > Why are you so hostile about this? Have I offended you in some way just > because I wish to process incoming messages in a manner different than > you? I harbor no personal grudge agsinst anybody because of the way it > works currently. Why do you have to take it so personally that I want to > deal with things differently than you? Hostile? I said you for some reason thought WinICQ had a halfway decent GUI, you predictably got incredibly defensive and wrote a couple of paragraphs explaining yourself (you even used metaphors!) Having seen the Obligatory GUI Defense With Metaphor many times before, I pointed it out to the list, so they don't get confused by it. You seem a bit, predictably, sensitive. > Maybe you like being interrupted from whatever you are doing just to know > that somebody wants to say hi. I prefer to deal with those things when I > can take a break from what I am doing. Why is this a personal sore spot > with you? It's not a sore spot with me at all. You're the one getting affective about it. I could tell you why ICQ's GUI is horrid, but instead all I've done is to explain how to best simulate the behavior you want, and when to expect behavior more closely matching that which you want. -s. |
From: Wiggins d'A. <wi...@da...> - 2003-06-26 00:27:55
|
Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:30:46 -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > > >>On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 11:05, Luke Schierer wrote: >> >>>Turn off the option to raise the window when you recieve messages. >>>luke >> >>No, that's not his issue. > > > Most correct. Luke's suggestion does not quite address the problem I > have. > > >>This is a >>I-for-some-reason-think-that-WinICQ-has-a-really-great-UI person who >>doesn't want IM windows when he gets an IM. > > > It's a matter of dealing with incoming messages when *I* want to deal with > them, not necessarily when they are sent (and all covering my desktop). > This is the same argument as to why e-mail is so much better than the > telephone. The telephone is a very interrupting device, so is popping up > IM windows when messages come in. > > >>You can turn on the "queue messages" option in the system tray plugin, >>which will sorta do what you want. > > > You mean "Hide new messages until tray icon is clicked"? I guess I don't > get to choose which buddy's incoming message I want to read though, do I? > After reading the lengthy discussion, I will throw out another option. centericq, while I don't think it is better or worse than Gaim, I use both depending on what environment I am forced into, but it would provide the functionality requested, granted at the price of a terminal window and loading new software. When I have X available on my comfortable linux box at home I prefer Gaim, at work where I have Win2K (ick) and so many ports denied, prodded, and probed I prefer SSHing into my linux station and using centericq in a terminal window. Just pointing this out so the Gaim list doesn't feel I am threatening their mind share by suggesting centericq. "Sometimes you feel like an X, sometimes you can't...." http://danconia.org |
From: Brian J. M. <br...@in...> - 2003-06-22 22:30:19
|
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 > benifit, 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. > that > 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 more fluid? > 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 impossible. > 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 behind it. 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 when working. b. |
From: Jon-Pierre G. <zen...@ch...> - 2003-06-22 23:26:31
|
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 17:30, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > no, we are just tired of requests to mimic winicq's ui. >=20 > 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. >=20 The beauty of open source is that you can do one of two things, depending on your skill set: 1) Code the change yourself. If you don't like the limitations of the System Tray plugin, add functionality to it. 2) As above, but if you are not a coder yourself, pay someone to do it. Or you can just use it as-is. Or beg someone to do it for free. --=20 Jon-Pierre Gentil <zen...@ch...> |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2003-06-22 22:46:24
|
Brian J. Murrell spake unto us the following wisdom: > > is a good=20 > > example of the kind of confusion it would cause: i frequently get peopl= e=20 > > asking for help because they have forgotten they selected that option.= =20 >=20 > Well, if you justifed the not-adding of any option based on the > intelligence of the dumbest users, then nothing would ever get added. I have two things to say about this ... 1) You obviously have not spent enough time in #gaim, or trying to give support for gaim. _Many_ users (as to whether or not they're the "dumbest", I will withold judgement) are confused by options that seem obvious to me, would seem obvious to you, and seemed obvious to the developer who wrote them. 2) We _are_ writing an IM client. You may extrapolate on the caliber of the average user as you see fit. > 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 > when working. As to fluidity ... I personally use tabbed windows, and just let tabs sprout up in the one little contained window as they will. When I feel like dealing with it, I do. The one point you made (about using a pile of desktops and wanting it to be where you are when you need it) is very good ... I'm not sure what can be done about that, but it would be nice and (I think) reasonably intuitive if the window were to be pulled to your current desktop by, say, double-clicking on a buddy in the blist to start a new conversation. I'm not sure how hard this is to do, because I'm certain many if not most window managers would require different triggers to make this happen. It's worth looking into, perhaps. Ethan --=20 "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi |
From: Michael R H. <bu...@co...> - 2003-06-23 03:17:28
|
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 18:45, Ethan Blanton wrote: > As to fluidity ... I personally use tabbed windows, and just let tabs > sprout up in the one little contained window as they will. When I > feel like dealing with it, I do. Same here. > The one point you made (about using > a pile of desktops and wanting it to be where you are when you need > it) is very good ... I'm not sure what can be done about that, but it > would be nice and (I think) reasonably intuitive if the window were to > be pulled to your current desktop by, say, double-clicking on a buddy > in the blist to start a new conversation. I just put the single tabbed window on all my desktops (i.e., I make it sticky). Solves the problem pretty well. While it would be nice to enable/disable raising the window on events right in the menu items, I'm happy enough to use the preferences page to change this setting so I can switch from "interrupt-mode" to "polling-mode" depending on how disgruntled I'm feeling with being interrupted. (and obviously, I use the Message Notification to make "polling-mode" work efficiently). mike > I'm not sure how hard this > is to do, because I'm certain many if not most window managers would > require different triggers to make this happen. It's worth looking > into, perhaps. > > Ethan -- Michael R Head <bu...@co...> http://www.core.binghamton.edu/~burner/ |