From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2004-04-26 17:52:08
|
I'm finally looking to get rid of our useless prefs, and as this is a touchy subject, I'll sollicit some opinions first. Please don't respond complaining that my opinion of sensible defaults and fewer preferences and stupid, you'll just be ignored. Or worse. Only respond with specific insight on specific ideas listed herein: HEREIN: Fonts: Replace 7 checkboxes, three dialog-spawning buttons, one spin button and two colored boxes with, like, a GtkFontSelector and a GtkIMHtml. Or something. Putting a GtkIMHtml there is definitely useful, but a fontselector can't pick colors or underlining, and I'd like there to be some way to specify the size without a face and stuff. Ideas? Message Text: Kill "Show graphical smileys" and put a "No Smileys" option in the Smiley Themes selector. Kill "Show URLs as links" default to "Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I?" Replace "Ignore colors" "Ignore font faces" and "Ignore font sizes" with just "ignore incoming formatting". Maybe? Buddy List: Kill "Show buttons as" make default "none." I never use them and wouldn't miss them much. The away message button is kinda useful though. Thoughts? Kill "Show numbers in groups." Default to "yes". Are there people who will get violent if we force them to know how many buddies are online in their groups? The preference isn't even worded well. "Show numbers in groups" What does that even mean? Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to "yes". How many people would these annoy? Conversations: Kill "Send URLs as links" default to "Yeah, I rarely send people links I don't want them to click on" Kill "Show aliases in tabs/titles" I used to be a staunch supporter of no aliases in tabs, but I'll give in here and default this to "Yes, please." I've been saying for a while (as have the people who ask why they can't get their conversations out of tabbed windows) that the tab preferences are braindead. "Show IMs and chats in tabbed windows" doesn't do what it says at all. I want to kill it and force people to look at the tabs against their will, but some people on this list care about people who aren't me, for some reason ;). I think Nathan had an idea I was ok with... something about graying the option out when no tabs is chosen. Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People suck. Kill "Show status icons on tabs" and default to "OK." It's useful and pretty, and everyone should use it. IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them together: Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like the new "none" look. I'd consider leaving a send button in, though, for people like my mom who actually click the Send button with the mouse after every message, but then again, my mom just isn't very smart. Opinons? "New window width" "New window height" and "Entry field height" need to die. Detect changes in size like we do with the blist and use that size to create new windows. Kill "Hide window on send" default to "No, that's so stupid". ICQ does not have an interface we wish to emulate. Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" Kill "Notify buddies that you are typing to them" default to "yes"? I could go either way on that one. Kill "Old-style completion" and bury it, while defaulting to "no". Actually, kill "Tab-complete nicks" too and default to "yes". Kill "Show people joining in window" "Show people leaving in window" and "colorize screen names" defaulting all to "yes". I can't really picture anyone saying "Man, Gaim's really cool, but I don't use it because it tells me when someone joins a chatroom" Sounds: Kill "sounds when you log in" default to "no". Nobody wants that. Away/Idle: Kill "sending messages removes away status" and default to "no" AIM users are used to "yes," but love that they can "no." If I want to come back from away, I'll just come back from away, I say. Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. Kill "Seconds before resending" and replace with a reasonable figure. I doubt I've changed it, so 120 is probably the default. Kill "Send auto-response in active conversations" and default to "no" That's just obnoxious. So, the goal here is to get rid of a bunch of preferences, and then re-organize them such that the dialog is a little less weildly. By killing a lot of these, we can move things around and trim the tree down a bit, I hope. Let me know what you think. Love, Sean. |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2004-04-26 18:12:29
|
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 01:52:09PM -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > I'm finally looking to get rid of our useless prefs, and as this is a > touchy subject, I'll sollicit some opinions first. > > Please don't respond complaining that my opinion of sensible defaults > and fewer preferences and stupid, you'll just be ignored. Or worse. > Only respond with specific insight on specific ideas listed herein: > > HEREIN: > Fonts: > Replace 7 checkboxes, three dialog-spawning buttons, one spin button and > two colored boxes with, like, a GtkFontSelector and a GtkIMHtml. Or > something. Putting a GtkIMHtml there is definitely useful, but a > fontselector can't pick colors or underlining, and I'd like there to be > some way to specify the size without a face and stuff. Ideas? a gtkimhtml might be hard as not all protocols support the same things, but overall i like this idea best. as a side note, gtk's font selector dialog also lets you pick a size, but doesn't handle color. > > Message Text: > Kill "Show graphical smileys" and put a "No Smileys" option in the > Smiley Themes selector. currently all our preferences are possitive. i'd like to keep it that way. this does however mean that some things should be selected by default for new users with no ~/.gaim/prefs.xml > > Kill "Show URLs as links" default to "Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I?" > agreed. > Replace "Ignore colors" "Ignore font faces" and "Ignore font sizes" with > just "ignore incoming formatting". Maybe? > sounds good to me, but this one will cause complaint. > Buddy List: > Kill "Show buttons as" make default "none." I never use them and > wouldn't miss them much. The away message button is kinda useful > though. Thoughts? i keep the buttons as text and use them fairly significantly. i don't particularly want to see this preference going away. > > Kill "Show numbers in groups." Default to "yes". Are there people who > will get violent if we force them to know how many buddies are online in > their groups? The preference isn't even worded well. "Show numbers in > groups" What does that even mean? > the people who complain about every pixel of space will be very vocal about this, the warning levels, and the idle times. i will complain about the warning levels because of the current gtk stupidity with columns. these options may however only make sense to users of the small buddy list. > Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to "yes". > How many people would these annoy? > > Conversations: > Kill "Send URLs as links" default to "Yeah, I rarely send people links I > don't want them to click on" > sounds good. > Kill "Show aliases in tabs/titles" I used to be a staunch supporter of > no aliases in tabs, but I'll give in here and default this to "Yes, > please." also sounds good. > > I've been saying for a while (as have the people who ask why they can't > get their conversations out of tabbed windows) that the tab preferences > are braindead. "Show IMs and chats in tabbed windows" doesn't do what > it says at all. I want to kill it and force people to look at the tabs > against their will, but some people on this list care about people who > aren't me, for some reason ;). I think Nathan had an idea I was ok > with... something about graying the option out when no tabs is chosen. > > Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People > suck. > "People suck." pretty much covers this one. lets just gray it out when not applicable. > Kill "Show status icons on tabs" and default to "OK." It's useful and > pretty, and everyone should use it. > i'm cool with this. > IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them > together: > Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like > the new "none" look. I'd consider leaving a send button in, though, for > people like my mom who actually click the Send button with the mouse > after every message, but then again, my mom just isn't very smart. > Opinons? > if we kill the buttons entirely we have an issue with the buddy icon, where does it go? > "New window width" "New window height" and "Entry field height" need to > die. Detect changes in size like we do with the blist and use that size > to create new windows. > about time ;-) > Kill "Hide window on send" default to "No, that's so stupid". ICQ does > not have an interface we wish to emulate. > good. i get a TON of invalid bug reports because of this option. > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" bad idea for conversations, good idea for chats. questionable how this balences out. > > Kill "Notify buddies that you are typing to them" default to "yes"? I > could go either way on that one. > people will complain we are "spyware" as a side note, this option is disliked by some people enough that they go through the trouble of finding the option in winaim's preferences (and even ars technica agrees they are 100x worse than we are _now_) > Kill "Old-style completion" and bury it, while defaulting to "no". > Actually, kill "Tab-complete nicks" too and default to "yes". > sounds good. > Kill "Show people joining in window" "Show people leaving in window" and > "colorize screen names" defaulting all to "yes". I can't really picture > anyone saying "Man, Gaim's really cool, but I don't use it because it > tells me when someone joins a chatroom" > sounds good. see my comment above about show logins in window. > Sounds: > Kill "sounds when you log in" default to "no". Nobody wants that. > agreed. > Away/Idle: > Kill "sending messages removes away status" and default to "no" AIM > users are used to "yes," but love that they can "no." If I want to come > back from away, I'll just come back from away, I say. > i predict this one will be controversial. i don't care. > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. > this one alot of people use. i see frequent bug reports about its brokenness, what we need to do is fix it, robot101 keeps promising a patch. > Kill "Seconds before resending" and replace with a reasonable figure. I > doubt I've changed it, so 120 is probably the default. > mine is set to 10 minutes, which certainly isn't the default. a useful option for those of us who hide behind away messages. > Kill "Send auto-response in active conversations" and default to "no" > That's just obnoxious. true. > > So, the goal here is to get rid of a bunch of preferences, and then > re-organize them such that the dialog is a little less weildly. By > killing a lot of these, we can move things around and trim the tree down > a bit, I hope. Let me know what you think. > > Love, > Sean. > so overall i agree with you on something over half of these preferences, not bad at all, much higher than our usual average ;-) luke |
From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2004-04-26 18:39:34
|
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 14:12 -0400, Luke Schierer wrote: > > Message Text: > > Kill "Show graphical smileys" and put a "No Smileys" option in the > > Smiley Themes selector. > > currently all our preferences are possitive. i'd like to keep it that > way. this does however mean that some things should be selected by > default for new users with no ~/.gaim/prefs.xml It wouldn't be a negative pref. A negative pref is "Don't do this." This would be a "No Smileys" option in the smiley theme listview. Just like the "None" options we already have in dropdowns. > Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to "yes". > > How many people would these annoy? > the people who complain about every pixel of space will be very vocal > about this, the warning levels, and the idle times. i will complain > about the warning levels because of the current gtk stupidity with > columns. these options may however only make sense to users of the > small buddy list. And we know how much I look to please people who use Small List and people who complain about every pixel of space ;). I'm unfamiliar with the column weirdness you speak of, but couldn't the "Screen real estate agents" just resize horizontally to clip them out and let the "I hate scrollbars" people do the complaining? > > IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them > > together: > > Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like > > the new "none" look. > if we kill the buttons entirely we have an issue with the buddy icon, > where does it go? Update your CVS. It's to the left of the entry IMHtml just like in Steven Garrity's mockup. > > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" > > bad idea for conversations, good idea for chats. questionable how this > balences out. > > Kill "Show people joining in window" "Show people leaving in window" and > > "colorize screen names" defaulting all to "yes". I can't really picture > > anyone saying "Man, Gaim's really cool, but I don't use it because it > > tells me when someone joins a chatroom" > > > > sounds good. see my comment above about show logins in window. Are you saying we should keep the "Show logins in window" configurable but get rid of "Show people joining chat?" I don't see why. |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2004-04-26 19:06:07
|
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:39:40PM -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 14:12 -0400, Luke Schierer wrote: > > > Message Text: > > > Kill "Show graphical smileys" and put a "No Smileys" option in the > > > Smiley Themes selector. > > > > currently all our preferences are possitive. i'd like to keep it that > > way. this does however mean that some things should be selected by > > default for new users with no ~/.gaim/prefs.xml > > It wouldn't be a negative pref. A negative pref is "Don't do this." > This would be a "No Smileys" option in the smiley theme listview. Just > like the "None" options we already have in dropdowns. > > > Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to > "yes". > > > How many people would these annoy? > > the people who complain about every pixel of space will be very vocal > > about this, the warning levels, and the idle times. i will complain > > about the warning levels because of the current gtk stupidity with > > columns. these options may however only make sense to users of the > > small buddy list. > > And we know how much I look to please people who use Small List and > people who complain about every pixel of space ;). I'm unfamiliar with > the column weirdness you speak of, but couldn't the "Screen real estate > agents" just resize horizontally to clip them out and let the "I hate > scrollbars" people do the complaining? we can get rid of this option if we swap the ordering of the idle times and warning levels in the small display. the column wierdness i'm refering to is how the column widths are (for good reasons) as wide as the widest entry which means that the group names+numbers push the warning levels over push the idle times over, and the idle times are far more useful than the warning levels and its a pain to horizontally scroll to see them. what we did before gtk2 was just append text to the screenname with spaces and tabs so that the warning levels and idle times weren't in a consist visible offset but varied with the size of the screenname. this was deemed a hack when moving to gtk2 and replaced with each having its own column. > > > > IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them > > > together: > > > Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like > > > the new "none" look. > > if we kill the buttons entirely we have an issue with the buddy icon, > > where does it go? > > Update your CVS. It's to the left of the entry IMHtml just like in Steven Garrity's mockup. > okay, i must have missed this update. > > > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" > > > > bad idea for conversations, good idea for chats. questionable how this > > balences out. > > > Kill "Show people joining in window" "Show people leaving in window" and > > > "colorize screen names" defaulting all to "yes". I can't really picture > > > anyone saying "Man, Gaim's really cool, but I don't use it because it > > > tells me when someone joins a chatroom" > > > > > > > sounds good. see my comment above about show logins in window. > > Are you saying we should keep the "Show logins in window" configurable but get rid of "Show people joining chat?" > I don't see why. > i'm saying "show logins in window" and "show join/parts" are the same option, that they should be merged, and they should be configurable. it does not however need to be visible, lets let it only be editable by simguy's plugin ;-) luke |
From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2004-04-26 18:13:03
|
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 13:52 -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > Replace 7 checkboxes, three dialog-spawning buttons, one spin button and > two colored boxes with, like, a GtkFontSelector and a GtkIMHtml. Or > something. Putting a GtkIMHtml there is definitely useful, but a > fontselector can't pick colors or underlining, and I'd like there to be > some way to specify the size without a face and stuff. Ideas? I know it's uncouth to respond to your own e-mails, but while I was in the shower I realized that a GtkIMHtml in MSN-editable mode with a toolbar could handle this task nicely. -s. |
From: Jason W. <wi...@ox...> - 2004-04-26 19:29:09
|
I'm particularly unsettled by such behavior. %j. I apologize for these email. On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:13:10 -0400 Sean Egan <sea...@bi...> wrote: > I know it's uncouth to respond to your own e-mails, but while I was in > the shower I realized that a GtkIMHtml in MSN-editable mode with a > toolbar could handle this task nicely. > > -s. |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2004-04-26 18:29:44
|
Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom: > I'm finally looking to get rid of our useless prefs, and as this is a > touchy subject, I'll sollicit some opinions first. I liked every single thing you suggested. Go Sean. Ethan --=20 The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764 |
From: Nathan W. <fac...@fa...> - 2004-04-26 18:37:35
|
I'm supposed to be working on my project, but I'll answer these, before sean gets trigger-happy. On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 13:52, Sean Egan wrote: > I'm finally looking to get rid of our useless prefs, and as this is a > touchy subject, I'll sollicit some opinions first. >=20 > Please don't respond complaining that my opinion of sensible defaults > and fewer preferences and stupid, you'll just be ignored. Or worse. > Only respond with specific insight on specific ideas listed herein: >=20 > HEREIN: > Fonts: > Replace 7 checkboxes, three dialog-spawning buttons, one spin button and > two colored boxes with, like, a GtkFontSelector and a GtkIMHtml. Or > something. Putting a GtkIMHtml there is definitely useful, but a > fontselector can't pick colors or underlining, and I'd like there to be > some way to specify the size without a face and stuff. Ideas? Good. I definitely like the idea of having a gtkimhtml window that will demo what they've selected. =20 > Message Text: > Kill "Show graphical smileys" and put a "No Smileys" option in the > Smiley Themes selector. >=20 > Kill "Show URLs as links" default to "Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I?" >=20 > Replace "Ignore colors" "Ignore font faces" and "Ignore font sizes" with > just "ignore incoming formatting". Maybe? All of the above look good. > Buddy List: > Kill "Show buttons as" make default "none." I never use them and > wouldn't miss them much. The away message button is kinda useful > though. Thoughts? I wouldn't cry if that bar went away, but I'm sure we have people who would. > Kill "Show numbers in groups." Default to "yes". Are there people who > will get violent if we force them to know how many buddies are online in > their groups? The preference isn't even worded well. "Show numbers in > groups" What does that even mean? Thats fine, although we really need to look into the corner cases that cause those numbers to go awry. -1/3 online is just a tad weird. > Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to "yes". > How many people would these annoy? I turn warning levels off. I really don't care, but that's just me. > Conversations: > Kill "Send URLs as links" default to "Yeah, I rarely send people links I > don't want them to click on" Agreed. > Kill "Show aliases in tabs/titles" I used to be a staunch supporter of > no aliases in tabs, but I'll give in here and default this to "Yes, > please." I'd keep this option. It can be useful to keep the screennames in the tabs/titles, especially when someone has several screennames, and you want to know from which they're IMing you. > I've been saying for a while (as have the people who ask why they can't > get their conversations out of tabbed windows) that the tab preferences > are braindead. "Show IMs and chats in tabbed windows" doesn't do what > it says at all. I want to kill it and force people to look at the tabs > against their will, but some people on this list care about people who > aren't me, for some reason ;). I think Nathan had an idea I was ok > with... something about graying the option out when no tabs is chosen. >=20 > Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People > suck. Yeah, I'd say either grey out the placement option when the other thing is checked, or grey out the other thing when placement option is anything but "New Window". And rename the other thing to just "Show Tabs" > Kill "Show status icons on tabs" and default to "OK." It's useful and > pretty, and everyone should use it. Agreed. People have been getting pissy lately about accidentally clicking the close button, so we can't get rid of that option > IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them > together: > Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like > the new "none" look. I'd consider leaving a send button in, though, for > people like my mom who actually click the Send button with the mouse > after every message, but then again, my mom just isn't very smart. > Opinons? I'd keep the option, but I do like the new buttonless mode. I think the people who want the send button want the whole shebang, and the people who are cool enough for the buttonless mode know how to work w/o a send button. > "New window width" "New window height" and "Entry field height" need to > die. Detect changes in size like we do with the blist and use that size > to create new windows. Amen. > Kill "Hide window on send" default to "No, that's so stupid". ICQ does > not have an interface we wish to emulate. Hallelujah. > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" Yup. > Kill "Notify buddies that you are typing to them" default to "yes"? I > could go either way on that one. No. This is a privacy feature. Most people don't care that the other side knows they're typing, some people are weirdly secretive about it. > Kill "Old-style completion" and bury it, while defaulting to "no". > Actually, kill "Tab-complete nicks" too and default to "yes". Agreed. Old-style is still slightly broken anyways. > Kill "Show people joining in window" "Show people leaving in window" and > "colorize screen names" defaulting all to "yes". I can't really picture > anyone saying "Man, Gaim's really cool, but I don't use it because it > tells me when someone joins a chatroom" Yes to the first two, but if you force colorized screennames on me, I may drive to binghamton and beat you up. Especially with those girly pastel colors. > Sounds: > Kill "sounds when you log in" default to "no". Nobody wants that. Agreed. > Away/Idle: > Kill "sending messages removes away status" and default to "no" AIM > users are used to "yes," but love that they can "no." If I want to come > back from away, I'll just come back from away, I say. Yup. > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. No. At least not until queueing doesn't suck. Even then, no. I don't like queueing. > Kill "Seconds before resending" and replace with a reasonable figure. I > doubt I've changed it, so 120 is probably the default. Yeah, this is preference bloat. Make it 5 minutes or something. > Kill "Send auto-response in active conversations" and default to "no" > That's just obnoxious. Yup. > So, the goal here is to get rid of a bunch of preferences, and then > re-organize them such that the dialog is a little less weildly. By > killing a lot of these, we can move things around and trim the tree down > a bit, I hope. Let me know what you think. Admiral goals. I also think that some prefs may be candidates for a "Advanced Preferences" plugin such as SimGuy (i think?) has started on.=20 That way sane users don't feel overwhelmed, and insane users can be insane. -Nathan |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2004-04-26 19:00:44
|
<snip> > > > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. > No. At least not until queueing doesn't suck. Even then, no. I don't > like queueing. oh, i missed what you said the default would be. definitally no queueing by default. that's horrible, plus if we DO do it for chats it'd be even more horrendous (imagine 500 queued messages), and if we don't, it'll hinder msn development that doesn't have the chat/conversation distinction. > > > Kill "Seconds before resending" and replace with a reasonable figure. I > > doubt I've changed it, so 120 is probably the default. > Yeah, this is preference bloat. Make it 5 minutes or something. > 5 minutes is reasonable, i could live with that. ask kingant though, he hides behind away messages ALL THE TIME. > > Kill "Send auto-response in active conversations" and default to "no" > > That's just obnoxious. > Yup. > > > So, the goal here is to get rid of a bunch of preferences, and then > > re-organize them such that the dialog is a little less weildly. By > > killing a lot of these, we can move things around and trim the tree down > > a bit, I hope. Let me know what you think. > > Admiral goals. I also think that some prefs may be candidates for a > "Advanced Preferences" plugin such as SimGuy (i think?) has started on. > That way sane users don't feel overwhelmed, and insane users can be > insane. > > -Nathan Nathan raises a good point here, SimGuy's advanced preferences plugin might be worth looking at for inclusion. luke |
From: Brian J. T. <bj...@co...> - 2004-04-26 19:14:59
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Sean Egan wrote: > I'm finally looking to get rid of our useless prefs, and as this is a > touchy subject, I'll sollicit some opinions first. awesome. i'm very much in favor of this initiative. i've stripped out the ones that i agree with and have no comment about. > Replace "Ignore colors" "Ignore font faces" and "Ignore font sizes" with > just "ignore incoming formatting". Maybe? yes, this sounds sensible. "Ignore formatting on incoming messages"? that sounds a bit verbose, but it's clearer. > Buddy List: > Kill "Show buttons as" make default "none." I never use them and > wouldn't miss them much. The away message button is kinda useful > though. Thoughts? i feel the same way personally, but i could see why a significant number of people could want the buttons - esp the away message button. > Kill "Show numbers in groups." Default to "yes". Are there people who > will get violent if we force them to know how many buddies are online in > their groups? The preference isn't even worded well. "Show numbers in > groups" What does that even mean? yeah, i'd say ditch it. the first time i read it, i thought it meant that if someone sent you a number like "123456789", gaim would display it as "123,456,789". > Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to "yes". > How many people would these annoy? that would annoy me, at least. i leave them off. if i want to know this info, i mouse over the buddy and use the popup. i like having the buddy list itself take up as little space as possible, and shrinking the list width and having scrollbars (to 'hide' the levels and times) looks ugly. > I've been saying for a while (as have the people who ask why they can't > get their conversations out of tabbed windows) that the tab preferences > are braindead. "Show IMs and chats in tabbed windows" doesn't do what > it says at all. I want to kill it and force people to look at the tabs > against their will, but some people on this list care about people who > aren't me, for some reason ;). I think Nathan had an idea I was ok > with... something about graying the option out when no tabs is chosen. > > Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People > suck. agreed - the tab prefs are really nonintuitive. perhaps something like this: Conversations Tab Placement: [Top/Bottom/Left/Right] [x] Show IMs in tabbed windows [x] Show chats in tabbed windows [x] Show IMs and chats in the same tabbed window (note 1) [x] Show formatting toolbar [x] Show close button on tabs (other options presumably nixed) note 1: make this option sensitive only if the two preceeding options are both selected. whether or not it should be indented farther is debatable. this presupposes that the "Placement" option menu up top is removed entirely. "Last created window" and "New window" are covered by the two checkboxes in "Tab Options". would it really be a big deal to ditch "By account" and "By group"? kinda iffy on that, as i can see why some people might like that (though i don't use it myself). i think the "Conversations" and "Tab Options" headings are unnecessary. all of the options are relevant to conversations (or rather, the conversation window itself). > IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them > together: > Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like > the new "none" look. I'd consider leaving a send button in, though, for > people like my mom who actually click the Send button with the mouse > after every message, but then again, my mom just isn't very smart. > Opinons? i like the new "none" look as well. out of the buttons there: - warn: presumably not used often - block: presumably used even less often than warn - add: used only once, in general. would be useful to have when a new user IMs you - remove: presumably used only once again, and something you can do elsewhere. i would imagine that you'd usually remove people directly from the buddy list, and that it's pretty rare to just have a conversation with someone and decide to remove them. - info: this is probably the only useful button, but, again, probably not used all that often. - send: redundant. on the other hand, sometimes when i copy and paste a URL to send to someone (using the mouse), it's more convenient to click send (since my hand is already on the mouse) than to hit enter. on the other hand, usually after clicking send, my hands go back to the keyboard to continue typing messages. so i still think it's redundant. my verdict: minimalistic view is good. > Kill "Notify buddies that you are typing to them" default to "yes"? I > could go either way on that one. hmm. i think it's pretty stupid, but some people i know like it to be turned off. kinda a privacy thing i guess. i really don't know. i think if you're actually talking to someone, it's pretty lame to feel like you have to hide from them when you're typing. > Away/Idle: > Kill "sending messages removes away status" and default to "no" AIM > users are used to "yes," but love that they can "no." If I want to come > back from away, I'll just come back from away, I say. heartily agree - i can't think of one person who i've converted to gaim from winaim who hasn't thought this is a really nifty feature. perhaps it's confusing at first, but since it's set to 'no' by default (right?), they'll get the initial confusing whether it's a pref or not. > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. as long as you can retrieve all the queued messages and still remain away, that's fine. how does this impact message send/receive if i'm away but sitting at the machine? sometimes i like to carry on conversations with certain people while i'm still away. if those incoming messages get queued, i wouldn't be happy at all. > Kill "Send auto-response in active conversations" and default to "no" > That's just obnoxious. how do you define an "active conversation"? if i'm away and yet at the machine, i want the autoresponse to be sent to pretty much everyone, whether or not they have a window/tab open. i of course wouldn't want to send my autoresponse to someone i'm actively typing to, but i may be talking to a >1 subset of the people with whom i have tabs open. if i have 5 tabs open, i'm away, and i'm talking to 2 of those tabs, how are those 2 tabs considered "active" and the other 3 "inactive"? overall, the plan sounds great. hopefully my suggestions are useful... -brian |
From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2004-04-26 19:53:54
|
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:14 -0400, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > how do you define an "active conversation"? It's based on the last time you sent a message to that person. I think if you're only sending auto-responses in non-active conversations, it will only send if you haven't written a message to that person in the past two minutes. -s. |
From: Andrew S. <gt...@ma...> - 2004-04-26 21:23:44
|
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 13:52, Sean Egan wrote: > Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People > suck. No complaint here if we could still drag tabs out to be in single windows. I've used this a few times to organize two windows with different tabbed conversations. > Away/Idle: > Kill "sending messages removes away status" and default to "no" AIM > users are used to "yes," but love that they can "no." If I want to come > back from away, I'll just come back from away, I say. > > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. These two defaults seem in conflict with each other. If don't remove the away message on send, then clearly one wants to converse while away (using away messages more as a presence like in Jabber rather than an away like in AIM). If one is conversing with people, then why not receive new messages? > So, the goal here is to get rid of a bunch of preferences, and then > re-organize them such that the dialog is a little less weildly. By > killing a lot of these, we can move things around and trim the tree down > a bit, I hope. Let me know what you think. My experience with messaging clients has shown me that at some point somebody decided their preferences should have a learning curve about on par with a college Constructing Proofs class. It would be great to see somebody break from this. -- Andrew Sayman <gt...@ma...> |
From: Dave W. <ka...@un...> - 2004-04-26 23:22:50
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andrew Sayman wrote: > On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 13:52, Sean Egan wrote: > > Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People > > suck. > > No complaint here if we could still drag tabs out to be in single > windows. I've used this a few times to organize two windows with > different tabbed conversations. > > > Away/Idle: > > Kill "sending messages removes away status" and default to "no" AIM > > users are used to "yes," but love that they can "no." If I want to come > > back from away, I'll just come back from away, I say. > > > > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. > > These two defaults seem in conflict with each other. If don't remove the > away message on send, then clearly one wants to converse while away > (using away messages more as a presence like in Jabber rather than an > away like in AIM). If one is conversing with people, then why not > receive new messages? Actually, I think it's just the labelling that's in conflict. IIRC, this should only queue new conversations, not new messages. But since I always am lazy and have 'Sending messages removes away status' turned on, so I never run into queuing and therefore may not have a clue as to what I'm talking about. :) |
From: Christian H. <ch...@gn...> - 2004-04-26 22:05:28
|
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 01:52:09PM -0400, Sean Egan wrote: > I'm finally looking to get rid of our useless prefs, and as this is a > touchy subject, I'll sollicit some opinions first. >=20 > Please don't respond complaining that my opinion of sensible defaults > and fewer preferences and stupid, you'll just be ignored. Or worse. > Only respond with specific insight on specific ideas listed herein: Ah, so glad we're doing this :) I agree with most of these, and I'll make some specific comments below. > HEREIN: > Fonts: > Replace 7 checkboxes, three dialog-spawning buttons, one spin button and > two colored boxes with, like, a GtkFontSelector and a GtkIMHtml. Or > something. Putting a GtkIMHtml there is definitely useful, but a > fontselector can't pick colors or underlining, and I'd like there to be > some way to specify the size without a face and stuff. Ideas? Great :) The MSN-type mode that you mentioned earlier sounds good. > Message Text: > Kill "Show graphical smileys" and put a "No Smileys" option in the > Smiley Themes selector. Agreed. > Kill "Show URLs as links" default to "Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I?" Agreed. > Replace "Ignore colors" "Ignore font faces" and "Ignore font sizes" with > just "ignore incoming formatting". Maybe? I personaly use Ignore font sizes and leave the other two on. Sometimes I'll turn on Ignore font faces as well. The reason is, I have several friends who have their font set to something weird and their text really large. I still do want to see the colors, however. I feel that with all the other pref removals that'll be going on, keeping these three shouldn't bloat things up much. I'm not religious about this, though. > Buddy List: > Kill "Show buttons as" make default "none." I never use them and > wouldn't miss them much. The away message button is kinda useful > though. Thoughts? The away message button is useful, though with the status rewrite, there may be other statusy things that aren't away messages. I want to come up with a better UI for all of that, but I still haven't decided on anything I like. I don't use the rest of the buttons. I'm not opposed to this, though I think others will be. > Kill "Show numbers in groups." Default to "yes". Are there people who > will get violent if we force them to know how many buddies are online in > their groups? The preference isn't even worded well. "Show numbers in > groups" What does that even mean? Very good. > Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to "yes". > How many people would these annoy? Some may want to keep this pref, and some posted their reasons. I personally don't care either way. > Conversations: > Kill "Send URLs as links" default to "Yeah, I rarely send people links I > don't want them to click on" Yes, full agreement. > Kill "Show aliases in tabs/titles" I used to be a staunch supporter of > no aliases in tabs, but I'll give in here and default this to "Yes, > please." I think this one will get some complaints. > I've been saying for a while (as have the people who ask why they can't > get their conversations out of tabbed windows) that the tab preferences > are braindead. "Show IMs and chats in tabbed windows" doesn't do what > it says at all. I want to kill it and force people to look at the tabs > against their will, but some people on this list care about people who > aren't me, for some reason ;). I think Nathan had an idea I was ok > with... something about graying the option out when no tabs is chosen. >=20 > Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People > suck. Let's just grey it. I should mention here that the conv rewrite has already begun, and though it has not progressed all that far yet, once of the more immediate plans was to remove a lot of these prefs. So, we can either do that in gaim now (which will bring me into conflict hell, which I'd rather avoid, but I can handle it) or we can wait for all the pref work in conversations to be done in the conv rewrite. I'd personally vote for the latter, as it's one set of changes at once, instead of twice over a couple of releases. > Kill "Show status icons on tabs" and default to "OK." It's useful and > pretty, and everyone should use it. Yep, though we should keep the option for the close button. > IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them > together: > Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like > the new "none" look. I'd consider leaving a send button in, though, for > people like my mom who actually click the Send button with the mouse > after every message, but then again, my mom just isn't very smart. > Opinons? The distinction between IMs and Chats in the new conv rewrite will largely go away. Any and all options should for the most part be merged. I am redesigning the conversation window, and one of the things I wanted to add was a bar at the top, above the conversation imhtml, that had the buddy icon, username, the away state or whatever text that you would otherwise see in the buddy list, and then the buttons that are currently on the bottom of the window moved to the right of the name and status text. The Send button would be moved to the right of the input box. With these changes, the conversation window wouldn't end up any larger than the current one. Things would just be shuffled. I feel this provides useful information that you would otherwise have to go to the buddy list for. I have considered removing most of the buttons, though. The Warn button is a very uncommon function, and can be accessed through the menu. Block and Add/Remove are probably also good candidates for the menu. I would like to keep Get Info, but it'd end up being alone by itself, so I may just remove all of them, or keep the preference for them. That's something we'll have to decide on. > "New window width" "New window height" and "Entry field height" need to > die. Detect changes in size like we do with the blist and use that size > to create new windows. Good :) > Kill "Hide window on send" default to "No, that's so stupid". ICQ does > not have an interface we wish to emulate. Agreed. > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" I can see some people not wanting that for IMs. I don't know why they wouldn't, though. > Kill "Notify buddies that you are typing to them" default to "yes"? I > could go either way on that one. I'd really like to keep this. There are times when I find this very useful. > Kill "Old-style completion" and bury it, while defaulting to "no". > Actually, kill "Tab-complete nicks" too and default to "yes". Good. > Kill "Show people joining in window" "Show people leaving in window" and > "colorize screen names" defaulting all to "yes". I can't really picture > anyone saying "Man, Gaim's really cool, but I don't use it because it > tells me when someone joins a chatroom" Let's keep the "colorize screen names" pref. I hope nobody uses the other two. > Sounds: > Kill "sounds when you log in" default to "no". Nobody wants that. Good. > Away/Idle: > Kill "sending messages removes away status" and default to "no" AIM > users are used to "yes," but love that they can "no." If I want to come > back from away, I'll just come back from away, I say. I mostly agree, though I'd still prefer to keep this option. > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. In my status rewrite, the "I'm away" window is going away. I just need to come up with a better UI for it that I actually like, as I mentioned above. I personally don't queue messages, so I wouldn't want to see this go away and default to yes. > Kill "Seconds before resending" and replace with a reasonable figure. I > doubt I've changed it, so 120 is probably the default. This is a pref that only hard-core people would care about. They can just use an advanced pref editor like SimGuy's or edit prefs.xml. > Kill "Send auto-response in active conversations" and default to "no" > That's just obnoxious. Agreed. > So, the goal here is to get rid of a bunch of preferences, and then > re-organize them such that the dialog is a little less weildly. By > killing a lot of these, we can move things around and trim the tree down > a bit, I hope. Let me know what you think. For the most part, I'm very happy with this decision, except for the points I noted above. I will tackle some of these issues in the status and conv rewrites, which, if all goes well, won't take more than a couple more releases to finish. Let me know if we're going to end up doing those now, or if I should handle them. Christian --=20 Christian Hammond <> The GNUpdate Project ch...@gn... <> http://www.gnupdate.org/ Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that. |
From: Etan R. <de...@ed...> - 2004-04-26 22:19:01
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Sean Egan wrote: > Fonts: > Replace 7 checkboxes, three dialog-spawning buttons, one spin button and > two colored boxes with, like, a GtkFontSelector and a GtkIMHtml. Or > something. Putting a GtkIMHtml there is definitely useful, but a > fontselector can't pick colors or underlining, and I'd like there to be > some way to specify the size without a face and stuff. Ideas? I made a patch which got rid of the Font Size pref but was then informed that the problem with that is that we use html font sizes (1-7) instead of the pixel sizes that the GTK+ font selector uses. I very much like the idea, just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this > Kill "Show URLs as links" default to "Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I?" > > Replace "Ignore colors" "Ignore font faces" and "Ignore font sizes" with > just "ignore incoming formatting". Maybe? I like ignoring font sizes but don't mind seeing faces or colors, so I don't think this one works so well. > Kill "Show warning levels" and "Show idle times" Default both to "yes". > How many people would these annoy? I'm one of the small list, pixel saving people so I don't like this at all. I also just don't care about warning levels at all. > "New window width" "New window height" and "Entry field height" need to > die. Detect changes in size like we do with the blist and use that size > to create new windows. I think this would be fine as long as there is a method to lock the size against stupid or accidental changes. That is I would fully agree that using the size of the window as it's been resized to is a Good Thing(tm) but I also know that on occasion I change the size of an IM window for one reason or another and don't want it to stay changed to that. So if this is going to happen make a (probably best hidden) pref to lock the sizes. > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" Like Luke said this doesn't make much sense for conversations. I have more than once left a conversation window open to someone to keep ready reference to a link or some other piece of information, but I really don't need to see how many times since then they logged in or out. If I need to know their status I'll look at the status icon in the tab. > Kill "Show people joining in window" "Show people leaving in window" and > "colorize screen names" defaulting all to "yes". I can't really picture > anyone saying "Man, Gaim's really cool, but I don't use it because it > tells me when someone joins a chatroom" I agree with Nathan on this one, don't make me use the colors. (I don't like colorized names, this isn't just an issue with the current colors.) > Kill "Queue new messages when away" and default to "yes"? I don't know. > Everyone hates the "I'm away" window anyway. I like the I'm Away window, but that's largely a result of the way I have my desktop set up and my window manager choice. But I haven't used queueing messages for a long time and would rather not have to. > Kill "Seconds before resending" and replace with a reasonable figure. I > doubt I've changed it, so 120 is probably the default. I think a pref for this makes sense, people have widely differing opinions as to how long that should be. Anything I didn't respond to, I either agreed with or didn't have anything to add to. -Etan |
From: Andrew S. <gt...@ma...> - 2004-04-26 23:27:29
|
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 18:18, Etan Reisner wrote: > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" > > Like Luke said this doesn't make much sense for conversations. I have > more than once left a conversation window open to someone to keep > ready reference to a link or some other piece of information, but I > really don't need to see how many times since then they logged in or > out. If I need to know their status I'll look at the status icon in > the tab. > Showing logins in the window makes a lot of sense for conversations where the online/offline state doesn't determine whether you can message somebody or not. When talking to a person that suddenly logs off, if you're not alerted to it then you could send a bunch of messages thinking they're afk when they actually logged off. -- Andrew Sayman <gt...@ma...> |
From: Etan R. <de...@ed...> - 2004-04-27 00:19:45
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andrew Sayman wrote: > On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 18:18, Etan Reisner wrote: > > Kill "Show logins in window," default to "yes" > > > > Like Luke said this doesn't make much sense for conversations. I have > > more than once left a conversation window open to someone to keep > > ready reference to a link or some other piece of information, but I > > really don't need to see how many times since then they logged in or > > out. If I need to know their status I'll look at the status icon in > > the tab. > > > Showing logins in the window makes a lot of sense for conversations > where the online/offline state doesn't determine whether you can message > somebody or not. When talking to a person that suddenly logs off, if > you're not alerted to it then you could send a bunch of messages > thinking they're afk when they actually logged off. If you want to know whether the person is afk or logged off you can also check the status icon in the tab. I realize that some people like knowing when their buddies log in and log out, which is why lots of people asked for the system log back when it wasn't there (something I've *never* used by the way). My point was exactly that some people like knowing and some people don't which is why the option should stay. -Etan |
From: Ka-Hing C. <ja...@ja...> - 2004-04-27 04:39:35
|
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:27:57PM -0400, Andrew Sayman wrote: > Showing logins in the window makes a lot of sense for conversations > where the online/offline state doesn't determine whether you can message > somebody or not. When talking to a person that suddenly logs off, if > you're not alerted to it then you could send a bunch of messages > thinking they're afk when they actually logged off. iChat has this really cool thing: it hides the input widget if the user is offline. Of course, gaim would need to check if the protocol supports offline messenging first. -khc |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2004-04-27 04:48:15
|
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:39:46PM -0700, Ka-Hing Cheung wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:27:57PM -0400, Andrew Sayman wrote: > > Showing logins in the window makes a lot of sense for conversations > > where the online/offline state doesn't determine whether you can message > > somebody or not. When talking to a person that suddenly logs off, if > > you're not alerted to it then you could send a bunch of messages > > thinking they're afk when they actually logged off. > > iChat has this really cool thing: it hides the input widget if the user is > offline. Of course, gaim would need to check if the protocol supports offline > messenging first. > > -khc which would by-and-large bring back his point, that its when offline messaging is supported that the show-logins is needed. for me though it comes down to the fact that this option is identical to the show parts/joins in chats, and that option is very clearly needed. now as to whether or not it should continue to be optional or if it should simply default to yes i could care less. luke |
From: Dave W. <ka...@un...> - 2004-04-26 23:07:56
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Sean Egan wrote: > HEREIN: > Fonts: > Replace 7 checkboxes, three dialog-spawning buttons, one spin button and > two colored boxes with, like, a GtkFontSelector and a GtkIMHtml. Or > something. Putting a GtkIMHtml there is definitely useful, but a > fontselector can't pick colors or underlining, and I'd like there to be > some way to specify the size without a face and stuff. Ideas? Yes. And then move it into 'Message Text' and kill 'Fonts' because that's what you're affecting anyway. It (I think) only affects the messages sent and does not affect the buddy list or other dialogs. > Message Text: > Kill "Show graphical smileys" and put a "No Smileys" option in the > Smiley Themes selector. Can we make it more simple than that and simply just add a 'Text Smileys' theme? I don't foresee picking a smiley theme and then checking 'no smileys' or 'show graphical smileys'. I suppose we could also then add a 'Stoic' theme that simply strips off smileys too..... > Replace "Ignore colors" "Ignore font faces" and "Ignore font sizes" with > just "ignore incoming formatting". Maybe? I wouldn't be seriously put out by this, however I have a couple friends that have very obnoxious colors and I enjoy being able to simply just strip the colors off. A suggestion that might work better for me (I don't know how often folks would use this) would be to implement your suggestion of 'Ignore incoming formatting' or simply 'Ignore formatting' and possibly also be able to toggle formatting on a buddy-by-buddy basis. I know you're trying to keep down the complexity and pain-in-the-assness that is otherwise known as preferences; that's something I'd like to see. I'd be happy to sit down and write a patch to do so if that is something you'd be willing to accept. > Buddy List: > Kill "Show buttons as" make default "none." I never use them and > wouldn't miss them much. The away message button is kinda useful > though. Thoughts? Why not move the 'away' menu from 'Tools' to a top-level menu item inbetween 'Tools' and 'Help'? At that point there would be one place to mark yourself away rather than two in the same interface. On a similar note, I was just looking at the tools menu. Would it make more sense to move 'Buddy Pounces' to 'Buddies' since it is a buddy features? > Conversations: > I've been saying for a while (as have the people who ask why they can't > get their conversations out of tabbed windows) that the tab preferences > are braindead. "Show IMs and chats in tabbed windows" doesn't do what > it says at all. I want to kill it and force people to look at the tabs > against their will, but some people on this list care about people who > aren't me, for some reason ;). I think Nathan had an idea I was ok > with... something about graying the option out when no tabs is chosen. > > Can we just force everyone to use tabs anyway? Probably not. People > suck. I guess I just don't understand this paragraph. I love the tabs and haven't used this preference in a long time. Does the preference not work? I think one potential simplification to this is in the Tab Placement dropdown to add 'No Tabs' (and possibly re-label the widget as 'Show Tabs: ' and values such as 'At Top', 'At bottom', etc.) Then the 'show conversations in tabs' checkbox goes away and we get that real estate back. One "feature" with tabs that I just tried but was unsuccessful at that I would possibly like to see is either to have a menu option to tear off a tab as a new window, re-order tabs (a la mozilla), etc. That could be one way to also get rid of 'Show IMs and chats in same tabbed window'.....if you can tear off tabs or drag them into another window that preference isn't needed. Again, if this is something that would be appreciated, I'll put forth work to try to make a patch for it. > IMs/Chats, these are mostly the same page, so I'll address them > together: > Kill "Show buttons as" default to "none." I have to admit I really like > the new "none" look. I'd consider leaving a send button in, though, for > people like my mom who actually click the Send button with the mouse > after every message, but then again, my mom just isn't very smart. > Opinons? I agree (not about your mom though ;)). I'm a keyboard guy and I don't ever use the buttons and it's nice to throw them away. I'd also be ok with the idea of simply just leaving a single 'send' button at the bottom. I'm of the opinion, however, that people can (and imo should) just get used to the idea of type type type type <whack enter to send>. I think defaulting the interface to have a 'send' button may make people WANT to use it rather than just realizing they can whack enter (which is most likely what is happening with your mom) > "New window width" "New window height" and "Entry field height" need to > die. Detect changes in size like we do with the blist and use that size > to create new windows. Ugh. Yes please. > Kill "Notify buddies that you are typing to them" default to "yes"? I > could go either way on that one. I know of people that use it both ways. I think this feature should be kept. I have some ideas for cleaning up/reorganizing some of the menus. I think it may be better for me to play with it and create a patch/viewables for people to see (and play with the changes). Thanks for your hard work in this guys, --dw |
From: Sean E. <sea...@bi...> - 2004-04-26 23:32:32
|
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 16:07 -0700, Dave West wrote: > Can we make it more simple than that and simply just add a 'Text Smileys' > theme? I don't foresee picking a smiley theme and then checking 'no > smileys' or 'show graphical smileys'. I suppose we could also then add a > 'Stoic' theme that simply strips off smileys too..... That's the idea. The "No smileys" option would be in the list of available themes. I'll probably just do it as another included smiley theme without any smileys in it. > The away message button is kinda useful > > though. Thoughts? > Why not move the 'away' menu from 'Tools' to a top-level menu item > inbetween 'Tools' and 'Help'? At that point there would be one place to > mark yourself away rather than two in the same interface. I really like this idea. > One "feature" with tabs that I just tried but was unsuccessful at that I > would possibly like to see is either to have a menu option to tear off a tab > as a new window, re-order tabs (a la mozilla), etc. That could be one way to > also get rid of 'Show IMs and chats in same tabbed window'.....if you can > tear off tabs or drag them into another window that preference isn't needed. > Again, if this is something that would be appreciated, I'll put forth work to > try to make a patch for it. I guess you've never tried dragging a tab out of a window, or into another window? > I have some ideas for cleaning up/reorganizing some of the menus. I think > it may be better for me to play with it and create a patch/viewables for > people to see (and play with the changes). Go for it. > --dw -s. |
From: Dave W. <ka...@un...> - 2004-04-26 23:38:02
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Sean Egan wrote: > > One "feature" with tabs that I just tried but was unsuccessful at that I > > would possibly like to see is either to have a menu option to tear off a tab > > as a new window, re-order tabs (a la mozilla), etc. That could be one way to > > also get rid of 'Show IMs and chats in same tabbed window'.....if you can > > tear off tabs or drag them into another window that preference isn't needed. > > Again, if this is something that would be appreciated, I'll put forth work to > > try to make a patch for it. > > I guess you've never tried dragging a tab out of a window, or into > another window? Actually I did....I guess my attempt was brief and I didn't realize that it was actually doing something when I dragged a tab out. You guys work quick ;) Thanks for the pointer. :) |
From: Steven G. <ste...@si...> - 2004-04-27 00:35:42
|
Good stuff all around. I'm so encouraged by this thread that I've written an article about it for my weblog (still being edited - not up yet). Sean Egan wrote: > On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 16:07 -0700, Dave West wrote: > >>Why not move the 'away' menu from 'Tools' to a top-level menu item >>inbetween 'Tools' and 'Help'? At that point there would be one place to >>mark yourself away rather than two in the same interface. > > I really like this idea. That would be an improvement. I would also like to see an easier path to setting all accounts to Away, as I suspect this is the most common action (that might have been discussed elsewhere on the list). Even better, I think, would be to follow the Gossip method of setting status with a always-visible menu at the bottom of the contact list: http://actsofvolition.com/images/screenshots/gossip_status.png I would also be interested in seeing "Offline" considered a "status", meaning one flydown could let you choose between "Available", "Busy", "Away", and "Offline". Choosing anything other than "Offline" could connect you. Of course, I'm over simplifying, as Gossip is only a one-protocol client. The Gossip-style status flydown also serves do show you your current status. Thanks for the great work, Steven Garrity |
From: Christian H. <ch...@gn...> - 2004-04-27 00:41:25
|
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:34:41PM -0300, Steven Garrity wrote: > Even better, I think, would be to follow the Gossip method of setting=20 > status with a always-visible menu at the bottom of the contact list:=20 > http://actsofvolition.com/images/screenshots/gossip_status.png >=20 > I would also be interested in seeing "Offline" considered a "status",=20 > meaning one flydown could let you choose between "Available", "Busy",=20 > "Away", and "Offline". Choosing anything other than "Offline" could=20 > connect you. Of course, I'm over simplifying, as Gossip is only a=20 > one-protocol client. >=20 > The Gossip-style status flydown also serves do show you your current stat= us. That works because you have one account on one service. I can't see that working in the Gaim model all that well. Christian --=20 Christian Hammond <> The GNUpdate Project ch...@gn... <> http://www.gnupdate.org/ "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -- Albert Einstein |
From: <ava...@ya...> - 2004-04-27 01:25:07
|
Hi, anybody would tell me the footprint of gaim? i know the binary size of gaim, but don't know exactly which library it links to. thanks. avanish --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at Yahoo! Mail. |