From kopete-devel  Fri May 06 15:58:26 2005
From: =?iso-8859-15?q?Ga=EBl_Beaudoin?= <mailinglists () gaboo ! org>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 15:58:26 +0000
To: kopete-devel
Subject: Re: [kopete-devel] Re: kdenetwork/kopete/kopete
Message-Id: <200505061758.27116.mailinglists () gaboo ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kopete-devel&m=111539511914667

Having a consistent and clean interface is great, but I agree with Olivier Goffart : msn and icq for example have far more status and they're far from useless.
"Out to lunch" isn't the same as "away" or "occupied".

Would it be possible to have global/default settings with for example the status that exists in every protocols 
and, also, the ability to set up custom status for which we could choose which status to use in each protocol.

Kopete need this feature. Personally it doesn't bother me so much but people coming from other IM programs
simply don't understand why it is not possible.

Gaël Beaudoin

Le Vendredi 6 Mai 2005 02:30, Matt Rogers a écrit :
> On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:21 am, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > Le Jeudi 5 Mai 2005 13:40, Matt Rogers a écrit :
> > > On Thursday 05 May 2005 02:39 am, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > > > Have you noticed that MSN has more than 2 online status.  There is
> > > > busy, be right back, on the phone.
> > > > ICQ has also occupied, do not distrub, free for chat.  Same for Jabber,
> > > > Yahoo, GG, ....
> > > >
> > > > If i want to set the status to busy globally, i have to select select
> > > > my status in each different account.
> > > > I don't see why one could go Away, and not Busy, Invisible, Free for
> > > > Chat, Be right back globally.
> > >
> > > Because those statuses don't exist in other protocols! Kopete is a
> > > multi-protocol client, or have you forgotten that? Global options that
> > > cover only a few protocols don't make sense, IMNSHO.
> >
> > I don't want Kopete be the lower denominator.
> > If the a status doesn't exist in a category for a protocol, then Kopete
> > will try to fall back to the status which fit the more in the category.
> >
> 
> From my POV, it's not about following the lowest common denominator. It's 
> about being able to provide a consistent and usable interface, and adding 
> entries to the global menu that change just a few (or even one) protocol to 
> the correct status surely won't be usable, since you're looking at an entry 
> for every unique status in a protocol. 
> 
> > see this mail http://lists.kde.org/?l=kopete-devel&m=111316716601158&w=2
> > you probably haven't read ( you probably was out the mailing list at this
> > time).
> 
> and it's so long, that i have no interest in reading it.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
kopete-devel mailing list
kopete-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel