Use case for per-protocol icons

[Luke Schierer]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 11:19:30PM -0400, Luke Schierer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 10:07:32PM -0400, Josh Williams wrote:
> > On 8/3/07, Darrell Michaud <DMichaud at pragmatech.com> wrote:
> > > While trying to find ways to enable the old-style per-protocol icons I
> > > stumbled upon this thread:
> > > [..]
> > 
> > My case is that I have lots of buddies who use more than one protocol,
> > and I need to know which account I'm talking to. There are many
> > reasons for this, such as the person may have one protocol signed in
> > at home and one at work, in which case I'd need to know that I'm
> > writing to the location they're at.
> 
> I find it curious that people have no concept of when their friends
> work.  I find it equally curious that people have so little self
> control, that they cannot tell someone who IMs them that they are at
> work and cannot talk, or that people have so little self esteem, that if
> a friend does not respond (because they are at work and cannot spare the
> time), they would be hurt or crushed. 
> 
> I find it even more curious that it is a huge inconvience to alias the
> @work screenname to differentiate.
> 
> I find it *even more* curious that these people have an @work screenname
> on a different protocol, never sign on both from both locations, AND
> give that @work screenname to friends.
> 
> Basically, this feature request sounds like "I can't hack life, so
> please provide me every crutch you can imagine - even if it will shoot
> me in the foot now and then" Because, as we have stated repeatedly, 
> using protocol to determine location is NOT going to reliably work. 
> 
> (a somewhat tired and gruchy)
> luke

It occurs to me that back when we caused the alias to show in place of
the screenname, people complained for *precisely* the same reason.  "If
the alias shows, I cannot tell if I'm talking to my friend's @work
screenname or not."  Um, if that is a problem, *don't give them the same
alias.*

luke