msn-pecan now has direct connection support (fast file transfers)

[Felipe Contreras]

On Jan 4, 2008 3:08 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 14:41 -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > So I'll have a "won the lottery" transient status for each status I go
> > into (available, away, do not disturb).
>
> Yes. Is this a problem? We already have an algorithm to show you the
> most used statuses. This is going to be the worst if you're just an MSN
> user who regularly takes advantage of all the statuses they offer. If we
> need to solve this (any more than the ranking code already does), I
> think we could not show transient statuses that are equal to a primitive
> which is shown plus the current message (which would be kept on status
> changes).

It's not a big problem, but it's yet another place where you can see
that mixing personal messages and statuses is not the natural thing to
do.

> So, if my message is "I won the lottery." and I'm available, there's no
> point in showing a transient status which is "Away" with that message,
> as I can get the same effect by clicking the global Away and leaving my
> message intact.
>
> Please note that this problem would not be unique to MSN.
>
> So, I'm now at the following proposal:
>
> 1) Keep the status message when changing statuses (and highlight it in
>    the status box for easy editing).
> 2) Add a checkbox to the complex status editor that says, "Keep existing
>    message on status changes." This checkbox would default to checked
>    and automatically uncheck if something was typed in the message box
>    in that window. (Transient statuses with a message would apply their
>    message, of course.)
> 3) Hide transient statuses that are equivalent to a primitive (which is
>    already shown) plus the current message.

I'd change 3 to 'remove transient statuses'.

> If we were to add some sort of global personal message, which is what I
> understand you've been suggesting, we'd still have to define when it
> would override the status message. If we override all status messages,
> they (status messages) become all but useless. If we override none, then
> why not just let people put their "personal message" in as their status
> message? If we override in some cases, then we're back to needing #2
> above anyway. Mark wants #1 anyway and you've just made an argument for
> #3, so we don't save any effort and would be adding complexity by making
> a separate personal message field.

I'm thinking on the following soltutions in order of complexity.

a) Separate status messages from statuses and just leave a general 'message'.

b) Add a global personal message that overrides status messages.

The status messages become useless, yes, but only when the personal
message is defined.

In order to make the switch to a status message faster we could have
one of these aditionaly:

b.1) Add a pm 'enabled' checkbox. So the personal message can be
disabled, and then the status message is used.

b.2) Add a custom status 'override personal message' checkbox. So,
some custom status messages could be used.

c) Your proposal, which I think is more complicated.

-- 
Felipe Contreras