- 2.1.0 GUI

Andrew Roeder correnthean at
Wed Aug 1 21:24:06 EDT 2007

>From: "Sean Egan" <seanegan at>
>To: "Andrew Roeder" <correnthean at>
>CC: devel at
>Subject: Re: - 2.1.0 GUI
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:59:28 -0700

>The original designer's mock-up that evolved into the infopane was
> 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
>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 do not demand a "full-sized" Icon Sean, I have not complained of the icons 
on the buddy list, because -I don't use them and if they were larger then 
they would create tremendous clutter for the buddy list- I'm also aware that 
my icon is displayed at 32x32 on my buddy list, but I really don't mind that 
since it is my icon, and I have no need at all to see it.  I'm merely trying 
to convey that the current icon is just too small, and the old icons were at 
times too large yes.

>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,
>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 for not taking the
>full height of my browser window.

Really in this aspect, it is Pidgin's fault this space is not used, I don't 
have the option to use it, therefor it is the designer and program's fault, 
not mine.  And obviously I don't want pidgin stretching out icons across my 
toolbar, I specifically want more icons and options easily available.

> > 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 
> > 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 
> > description.  Removal of these descriptions would negate the need for 
> > 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 
> > 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.

I don't really understand this question. I was saying that I do not need 
descriptions at all for my buttons, the icons are enough, and the 
descriptions currently lengthen the size of the buttons.

With the descriptions removed there would be space for more buttons, while 
maintaining the small toolbar usage.

I've touched on this before in GUI related topics, but why is it never 
considered that GUI configurability should be much more than "feature 
on/feature off"

See what you’re getting into…before you go there

More information about the Devel mailing list