Use case for per-protocol icons

Lukas Barth tinloaf at
Mon Aug 6 23:30:26 EDT 2007

Josh Williams schrieb:
>> I don't know who would have told you this; we have stated on *many*
>> occasions that both the buddy list and the conversation can
>> _trivially_ be decorated with an icon through the plugin interface.
> I think the issue we're debating is what the _default_ interface is,
> with no plugins, hacks, or themes.  Perhaps we should asking ourselves
> this: Do we want everyone who uses Pidgin for the first time to have a
> bad experience?

I don't think a first-time-user will have any bad experience, because 
he's not used to "distinguish his buddies by protocol icon", or whatever 
function protocol icons were used for in Gaim. I think a first-time-user 
will just use the new functions as intended: He will think of his 
buddies as people, not as some protocol he connects to.

>> This is, again, documented on this list and in the bug tracker, as
>> well as having been discussed on multiple occasions on IRC and in the
>> jabber conference.
> IE6 has an addon for tabs. Does that mean I should start using it?

If you want tabs in IE6, why should you not use it?

> Yes, you have reworded, restated, copied and pasted, blogged about,
> and documented in the wiki _many_ times, but basically what you're
> saying is that you do not care what the users want. (Which is why I'm
> working on a QT fork atm.)

Well, I, being a Pidgin-user, want little green dots instead of all the 
protocol icons (and all what comes with this - abstraction to buddies 
instead of protocols.)

And now don't say "but you're only one, several people have stated they 
are against the change" - i guess there are thousands of users out there 
who like the new approach to buddies, and who just don't show up on this 
mailinglist, because they are perfectly comfortable with what they got.

>> We are *not* ignoring the problem here, and nor are we ignoring the
>> specific complaints.  We've just heard it all before, and it saves
>> everyone's time if the complainants can brush up on their history
>> before accusing us of malpractice.
> Or, maybe, after the 10th thousand complaint, you'll finally go back
> to the UI people preferred.

I, being a part of "people", prefer the new UI. So there is no need to 
go back.

Oh, wait, there is a unknown number of people out there using Pidgin? 
And no one knows how many of them want which type of UI? Oh damnit. In 
this case, "But people want this!"-arguments are invalid, sorry.

> I have many users on my network who have
> specifically requested Gaim 2 beta 6 to be installed instead of Pidgin
> for these specific UI issues we've been discussing (not just the
> icons).

Probably because they did not get what the change was all about. It is 
more than "replacing all protocol icons with green dots", perhaps this 
should be communicated to the user in a better way. (No, I have no clue 
how to do this...)

>> One last time ... if you have anything _new_ to bring to the table,
>> let us have it.
> No, we don't _want_ something new.

So use Gaim2.0.0beta6?

> We just want this particular part of the UI to be the way it *used* to
> be.

Ah, you want something new - an up-to-date client. But as long as you 
can not prove that the people wanting the old UI are the majority *and* 
you cannot give any good reasons why the old UI is the superior one, I 
see no reason why it should be changed.

I'm not saying that the developers have to do what the majority of users 
wants, but as long as not even this is shure, why should they even 
consider changing back to the old UI without having any good reason?

I think that the developers are doing a great job as far as UI is 
concerned, especially when I see how even little changes in the UI are 
discussed here in depth. Keep up the good work.


More information about the Devel mailing list