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

List:       kopete-devel
Subject:    [kopete-devel] [Bug 65019] Improper message notification behavior
From:       <sputnick () gmx ! net>
Date:       2004-07-01 10:47:29
Message-ID: 20040701104729.24744.qmail () ktown ! kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
      
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65019      




------- Additional Comments From sputnick gmx net  2004-07-01 12:47 -------
On Thursday 01 July 2004 10:27, Stefan Gehn wrote:

> No, no, no, _both_ ways are wrong. I have tried enough applications that
> got uninstalled five minutes after I started them just because their mass
> of options, bells and whistles. I don't want an application to make me
> change 2563743 different options before I can use it.

That's why you have reasonable default options that work for the majority of 
the users. Those users don't have to change 2563743 different options to work 
with the program. On the other hand, people not happy with the default 
settings can always change them.

> The other extreme is apps that I don't feel comfortable with and which I
> cannot make behave like I want.

Exactly. For me that's the case with the current version of Kopete. And 
apparently I am not the only one.

> > they can easily ignore the options.
>
> The visual appearance when you open a preferences dialog for the first time
> _does_ make a difference!

Yes. Put the basic options on the main page and hide the advanced stuff 
somwehere else, so people don't see them when they open the dialog.

> > If people are missing one option or
> > another, they can't do anything to change that. Also, it is always
> > possible to hide stuff like that behind a "Advanced" button. I really
> > can't see how this can disturb or hurt anybody.
>
> Having to click on "Advanced" buttons all the time is not an option either.

Usually I do have to click on that exactly once. It's not like I am 
reconfiguring my application every day. Once it works as expected, I leave 
the preferences alone.

And of course you can't have everything at the same time. You want an 
application that works right out of the box for everybody, that behaves 
exactly like everybody wants, that has a clean preferences dialog, but still 
features all needed preference settings without hiding part of them 
somewhere. You can do that for an application you write for yourself, because 
you can write it your way. But you will never be able to do that for an 
application that's widely used by people, because people usually don't agree 
on preferences and have different usage patterns.

> > I always found the configurability one of the major advantages of KDE
> > over Gnome, and of Linux over Windows. Easy is not always good.
> > Reasonable default settings and hidden options are cool for newbies, but
> > the pros should still have the possibility to tweak their system as much
> > as they want. This is exactly what Linux and most KDE programs can give
> > me.
>
> Look at fvwm2 if you want to see a bad example of overconfigurability (or
> however you want to name it). You can spend weeks on your fvwmrc and still
> it's not perfect yet. And I really doubt having a gui for such a beast
> would make it any better for anybody.

fvwm2 does not come with reasonable default settings. KDE does, Kopete does, 
and both require only minor tweaks to exactly fit my needs. Bad thing that 
Kopete does not offer me possibility of tweaking it like that. Besides, 
offering a behavior that is consistent with most other messengers is nothing 
I'd call "overconfigurability". Nobody expects you to offer a config file 
that lets me place every control where I want it.

-- Manuel
_______________________________________________
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]