Changing user icons

[Vladimir Kraljevic]

"People are perfectly free to arrange their buddy list into groups
that reflect the account or protocol, as well as turning on the
protocol icons."

Is this different from setting a custom icon per contact? o.0 How can
the protocol icons be turned on?!??


2009/1/18 John Bailey <rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org>:
> Jim Fenstemacher wrote:
>> With respect to all of this I still would like to have the option to use
>> the protocol icons instead of the "green dot", the way Gaim looked.  I
>> have a few reasons for this:
>>
>>    1. Icon simplicity:  Current there are two icons displayed for each
>>       user, one to show their status and one to show their protocol.
>>       This could be simplified into one icon showing both, they way Gaim
>>       showed worked.
>
> This is blatantly false.  The status icons we use currently are far simpler than
> the protocol icons used by versions prior to 2.0.0beta7.  Previously, any status
> other than available was noted by having an emblem over the protocol icon,
> making it harder to determine the status simply from the icon.  It also created
> a mess of icons for the user to remember.  Instead of simply one icon for
> available, there were 12 (or however many protocols we supported at the time).
> The same went for away, do not disturb, or any other status.  This created more
> than 200 possible combinations that a user had to remember and visually
> distinguish, compared to the far simpler handful of icons we have now.
>
>>    2. Aesthetics (for some) <snip>
>
> Aesthetics carried (and carries) precisely zero weight in this.
>
>>    3. Open source:  This is open source software and as such is a
>>       collaborative project.  It requires input from all parties to
>>       develop the best software that the community can.  Simply ignoring
>>       part of that community and rejecting their ideas alienates part of
>>       the community.  This is not the xxx behind an open source project.
>
> We have not ignired the community.  We don't agree with this exceedingly tiny
> vocal minority.  We did listen; the fact that we didn't act on their demands and
> requests does NOT mean that we didn't listen or that we ignored anyone.
>
> There's an old adage in open source communities--if you don't like the direction
> of development, fork it.  Anyone is welcome to do so.  Of course, there's also
> the fact that anyone who wants to change something in Pidgin is welcome to try
> by submitting a patch.  If we reject it, there's always the fork option to fall
> back on.
>
>>    4. Appease a small group:  Again, I understand that this would only
>>       be helpful for a small group of users, but that was part of the
>>       idea behind the "green dot".  While reading one of the tickets a
>>       developer mentioned that the "green dot" was implemented so that
>>       it would be easier for color blind people to use.  This is a very
>>       small amount of the population (even though 2 of the developers
>>       are color blind).  So part of the reason the "green dot" was
>>       implemented was to appease a small group of users.  I think the
>>       implementing Gaim-style icons would appease an equally small group
>>       of users.
>
> The colorblindness issue is not nearly as important as it's made out to be.  It
> is, however, a convenient side-effect.  There were requests to implement
> Adium-like status icons as well, and this satisfied those requests.  There were
> also other reasons, such as not using trademarked images, making the icons
> consistent, and so on.  The decision had *many* components to it, not just the
> few mentioned here.
>
>>    5. What the developers believe:  The Gaim-style icons are no longer
>>       used because the developers do not believe people should use their
>>       program that way.  I believe that end users should be able to use
>>       programs the way they see fit.  This is a belief and I think the
>>       developers should respecteveryone's beliefs.  They should not try
>>       to impose their beliefs on others (as with religion, political
>>       views, morals, etc.), but rather give the end user the option to
>>       use the program the way they believe it should be used.
>
> We're not forcing anyone to do anything.  People are perfectly free to arrange
> their buddy list into groups that reflect the account or protocol, as well as
> turning on the protocol icons.  It is, however, our right as the developers to
> say no to any feature request or change demanded, requested, or suggested.  It's
> also our right to say that adding options is out of the question.
>
>> Again, I completely understand why the "green dot" is used as opposed to
>> Gaim-style icons.  I am simply asking the the end user be given the
>> option to use the icons they wish, no matter what their reason.  I hope
>> I have not been too long winded, I am simply voicing my opinion in the
>> hopes that I can improve the program.  If I knew anything about
>> programming I would probably take the time to modify is myself, but
>> unfortunately I do not.
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to read this and hopefully you consider my
>> opinion.
>
> We have already considered and rejected this change.  The reasons have been
> discussed on more than one occasion, and quite frankly we're tired of having the
> discussion with the exact same arguments.  If someone can come up with an
> original arugment that doesn't simply rehash arguments we've heard for the last
> two years, then they're welcome to participate in the discussion and see if
> we're willing to change our minds then, but until then our original decision stands.
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support mailing list
> Support at pidgin.im
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>
>