[Pidgin] #4986: automatic chat input field resizing should be optional, regression from 2.3

[Pidgin]

#4986: automatic chat input field resizing should be optional, regression from 2.3
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  swbrown       |       Owner:                   
      Type:  enhancement   |      Status:  reopened         
  Priority:  minor         |   Milestone:                   
 Component:  pidgin (gtk)  |     Version:  2.4.0            
Resolution:                |    Keywords:  chat input resize
   Pending:  0             |  
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment (by TacBoy):

 Replying to [comment:182 deryni]:

 > Replying to [comment:175 kdorff]:
 > No, as of yet we have not added the ability to control the minimal size.
 If we continue to receive complaints (valid complaints not just complaints
 for the sake of complaining) about the default two line size I at least (I
 can't speak for anyone else) am open to coming up with a way to allow for
 people to control the default/minimal height of the entry area. As we have
 seen a small handful of requests for both a larger default size and a
 smaller default size.

 And herein lies part of the reaction you are seeing. Who are you to
 determine which complaints are just "for the sake of complaining"? What
 objective criteria are you using. It boggles the mind.

 And the fact that you hear requests both for smaller and larger default
 sizes would seem to indicate (to me at least) that an option is desirable.
 Allowing the user to decide. Just what a good number of the responses have
 been saying.

 > I have repeatedly asked for constructive help and repeatedly asked not
 to be told that the only possible help is to revert the change or add an
 all-or-nothing preference.

 It seems to me the reasonable thing requested (and now repeated) is a box
 with the behavior you have now but allowing people to set a default
 initial size by dragging the top of the chat window. It appears the people
 you accuse are not the only ones listening.

 > Which is exactly why the patch posted to this ticket is not something I
 have actively considered.

 Perhaps it is this lack of active consideration that people seem to be
 taking for closed mindedness.

 > I really do not believe an all-or-nothing switch is at all necessary and
 as such am unwilling to consider such a solution while there is still a
 chance of finding a real solution.

 Again, I believe this unwillingness is exactly part of the blow back you
 are encountering.

 > At no point was this (or any other idea) rejected "just because it added
 a single option to [the] preferences [dialog]" but you are free to
 continue believing that as opposed to the actual reasons I (and others)
 have presented if doing say makes you feel better about not helping this
 move forward.

 As repeatedly stated, we've yet to hear a reason other than code comlexity
 vs developer time. Perhaps if you could restate what overwhelming argument
 there is for not having an manually adjustable box because after repeated
 re-readings of this thread myself (and others from what they have posted)
 have missed it. That may help rather than repeatedly referring to reasons
 nobody can seem to find.

 > I have routinely indicated that I am interested in ideas which help move
 the current design forward and which modify it to better serve all users
 without requiring a simple disabling switch, the fact that you (and so
 many other people) seem to have ignored (or just flat out missed) my
 comments to that effect is something I do not at all understand.

 It could be because the ideas given are dismissed out of hand as noted
 above, without any clear indication given as to why. Other ideas such as
 just allowing a manual adjustment of the default level seem to have been
 ignored. I have found in life that if people are ignoring something it is
 because they don't want to hear it or don't understand it. With the devs
 it seems the former, with the users the latter.

 > My comments about the download numbers were *precisely* designed to
 indicate how ridiculous any such discussions about majorities and
 minorities, and vocality are *in their entirety*.

 May I suggest then that you actually *say* that, because it is clearly not
 what came across. Or are the users wrong in the way they interpret and you
 right in the way you deliver a message also?

 > The fact that you (and others) seem to only see the insanity when the
 concepts are presented from our side is exactly the problem I was trying
 to bring out.

 Perhaps this "us versus you" "our side, your side" is also part of the
 issue. As for insanity, do you honestly believe that these views and
 feelings are born out of nothing or ill will? It is a desire for an
 application that is usable for themselves. To continue to discount and
 dismiss it and demand alternate solutions without indicating what is truly
 wrong with the proposal seems unproductive.

 > I don't expect the average user to do any of the things you suggest and
 it is exactly for that reason that I cannot believe that the numbers of
 people who do that represent anything approaching even a representative
 sample of users let alone the clear and "huge" majority it has so often
 been presented as.

 The options I believe you refer to were clearly indicated as for advanced
 users. So this is truly irrelevant. And while not the best solution
 doesn't address that point. I agree however there are better solutions
 that others can benefit from. But again part of the problem seems the
 dismissive nature of the denial of request.

 > I hope this makes my point more clear, I would dearly love to do away
 with any and all comments on numbers of users one way or the other as that
 is an entirely unhelpful metric in each and every way.

 I'd say it's hardly unhelpful. It's entirely helpful. What it is not is
 possible in this forum and thus irrelevant.

 > I might add that the fact that you are able, in essentially back-to-back
 sentences, to make the claim that the numbers of people who are willing to
 comment on this ticket is somehow representative of some larger unvoiced
 whole and yet that the numbers of people who aren't complaining (as seen
 as a portion of the volume of downloads from the SourceForge statistics)
 is not representative of anything is an amazing display of mental
 gymnastics of a caliber I am afraid I am not capable of.

 The fact that you can relate a download to a comment, especially of an
 application prior to knowing how it opperates (potentially) or knowing it
 ever could have operated a different way is a mental gymnastic of a
 caliber I am happy I am not capable of.

 > I am amazed at your masterful ability to claim that the fact that the
 number of people commenting here is clear evidence of a large untapped
 group of likeminded people while simultaneously claiming that the (larger)
 number of people who have not done so is *not* an indication of the number
 of people who disagree with you (and thus either agree with me or do not
 care in the slightest).

 If you thought it through you would realize that a) not everyone knows
 they can b) some that are see this and think it sufficient and c) some
 people would never say regardless. This is not a place to post tickets of
 congratulations. It's apples to oranges.

 I am amazed at your masterful ability to claim that a number of people
 taking the time to do these things is not a clear indication of a greater
 number suffering it. It seems common knowledge to me. If your cable goes
 down do you think every single person unhappy about it calls the cable
 company? Of course not. So to think every single person unhappy posted in
 this ticket is just silly, but that seems to be your implication.

 But, again, as I (I won't speak for others) said I'm sure the vast
 majority of users don't care one way or another. It's a tiny blip on their
 radar. But since they don't, it's neither an argument for or against any
 solution.

 But to sum up the most important point:

 What's wrong with the current solution with a half-height growth and
 allowing a grabbable bar to set the default size which installs at a
 default size of 2 lines? It seems simple, intuitive, straight forward and
 to meet the requirements of what everyone is asking for. Perhaps I am
 missing something as to how this wasn't grasped as what was wanted by
 several in the first place.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4986#comment:188>
Pidgin <http://pidgin.im>
Pidgin