[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kopete-devel
Subject:    Re: [kopete-devel] Re: kdenetwork/kopete/kopete
From:       Gaël_Beaudoin <mailinglists () gaboo ! org>
Date:       2005-05-06 15:58:26
Message-ID: 200505061758.27116.mailinglists () gaboo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]