http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/2367 - 2.1.0 GUI

[Sean Egan]

On 8/1/07, Andrew Roeder <correnthean at hotmail.com> wrote:
> In response to Sean, yes indeed I need at least a 64x64 icon threatening me
> at all times, on higher resolutions (1280x1024) I am not exaggerating when I
> say the icon at 32x32 loses practically all content, this is especially for
> users of MSN where they expect me to see a 96x96 icon, once the buddy icon
> display's the buddy tooltip this will at least be partially livable.

The original designer's mock-up that evolved into the infopane was
http://pidgin.im/~seanegan/new-conversation-window.png and was almost
immediately deemed Way Too Big. It's hard to find the appropriate
balance between "too big" and "too small," and this seemed like a good
one.

This is the same size as the icons on the buddy list, which nobody has
complained about. I'm not sure why it's deemed important to have the
full-sized icon on your screen all the time.

> I find it ironic to say that I have "Stretched my window further than it
> needs to go", It is my user preference that I rather have a more horizontal
> than vertical chat(Given the fact my understanding is, you also enjoy having
> "too many" chat tabs open at once, I'd think you'd prefer the horizontal
> also to avoid having to scroll through the tabs.)

I prefer my windows smaller, but sometimes having lots of tabs forces
my window wider; never so wide that I feel any space is being wasted,
though.

It's still not valid to say that because you want your window to take
up more space than it needs that Pidgin is at fault for not using all
the space you give it. I don't blame google.com for not taking the
full height of my browser window.

> I do not necessarily want tooltips on menus, but they are less intrusive
> then a constant description on the toolbar for each, personally I would be
> content with no descriptions, if the icon is of obvious design(which I
> believe they are.) You are able to determine their use without needing the
> description.  Removal of these descriptions would negate the need for -SOME-
> the dropdown menus while maintaining a small toolbar for users who want
> this.  The most common uses should be icons on the toolbar,  I feel the
> buttons are unnecessarily large for their purposes, and this is why I think
> it would be an acceptable change.

Which is it?

Do the buttons take up too much space, as you argue in the previous
paragraph, or too much space, as you argue here.

Are tooltips an appropriate, non-intrusive place to put information as
you argue for button descriptions here, or are they a hugely
unaccessible, inconvenient place as you argue for buddy icons above?

It's clear you're reaching for any point you can find to justify your
personal preference. And, while we're not likely to change anything
back just because of your personal preference, you don't need to
justify your taste.

> As for the redundant buddy icon, I am still an advocate that the protocol
> the user you are speaking to should be openly displayed ontop of the online
> icon and not hidden, this area provides for this.

It was considered (and even planned) to put the protocol icon here,
but ultimately it was decided to be too cluttered, and that the
tooltip was fine for it.

With no hard feelings, despite my argumentative tone,
-Sean.