salinasv at gmail.com
Tue Nov 2 12:19:01 EDT 2010
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Phil Hannent <phil at hannent.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02/11/2010 15:33, Jorge Villaseñor wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Etan Reisner
>> <pidgin at unreliablesource.net> wrote:
>>> My concern would be that contacts are sufficiently invisible enough that
>>> we still get people occasionally "losing" buddies while reorganizing their
>>> buddy lists (which is an actual interaction with the UI).
>>> I can only imagine that people will be utterly and completely mystified if
>>> they add a new account and see no indication that any of their buddies
>>> were added to the list.
>>> Without indicating the auto-merge somewhere obvious in the UI and/or
>>> making contacts much more obvious (and potentially even then) I'm a bit
>>> concerned about this becoming a "set and forget" option which causes
>>> "breakage" much later down the line.
>> I guess the last time this was proposed it included a merge-accept
>> dialog in which the UI, when finding contacts to merge, show a dialog
>> with relevant information to the user to accept/decline the merge.
>> I think this dialog plus the preference to disable this function would be ok.
> How about not having a preference but having a "Merge all", "Merge one", "Do not
> merge", "Do not merge any" buttons instead, which is for the current runtime.
> The exact wording can be worked out, however the number of times this is done
> does not warrant a preference, in my humble outsiders opinion.
What exaclty each option will do? how is it different "do not merge"
and "Do not merge any"?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
More information about the Devel