One small thing... preferences->groups->"show a mobile group"... that should probably disappear and go into the view menu.. what's the use of having a whole preferences tab from a single option... :s
KKRT On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 08:02:18PM -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote: > On 6/2/08, Karel Demeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 2008/6/2 Youness Alaoui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> Humm.. it's a bit weird.. maybe more 'logical' but less intuitive for WLM > >> users (don't forget that our purpose is to keep the same look&feel to ease > >> the transition of WLM users). > > > > > > As these are options ppl normally don't change a lot and also won't be > > changed by a lot of ppl, I think it's OK to have another menu-structure, > > surely if this structure would be very intuitive so anyone could quickly > > find it. IMHO, I don't think a lot of WLM users ever use the menu's at all > > so they won't even know where to find what. If they would use amsn and use > > a menu, the best thing to have would be the most intuitive and user-friendly > > menu. > > On another note, if you want to stay close to WLM, it means you have to > > change the structure all over again once they change which would be a huge > > job for something like the menu system that isn't very much used IMO. > > > > good arguments, to which I will only add another argument : I just realized > that we probably don't even have the same menu structure as WLM :s > > > Also, the 'sort ascending' and 'sort descending' look like they would act on > >> whatever the sorting is, while it should actually by 'sort alphabetically > >> ascending' and 'sort alphabetically descending'. > > > > > > In fact, in my plan, it would act on every sorting. So you could sort > > ascending/descending alphabetically but also by ascending/descending log > > size or ascending/descending by status. I'm not sure how much would have to > > be changed code-wise to support this though. > > > > I'm not sure about that... people wouldn't want the top users to be the > least talked to.. and the use case could be that someone uses descending > sorting, then he chooses sort by log size, and doesn't realize it's sorting > it in reverse order... > > > Also, for users with the same log size (mostly 0K), the 'sort > >> alphabetically' would be important to keep... so we shouldn't have a radio > >> button between the sort alphabetically and the sort by how much I talk to > >> them... > > > > > > Well, for users with the same status (when sorted by status) or the same > > log size (when sorted this way) should still be sorted alphabetically as > > there's no other logical way to show 'm otherwise. > > This means that in the menu, the options stand for: > > > > Sort contacts => > > o Sort by status (code-wise: sort by status AND alphabet) > > o Sort by chat log size (code-wise: sort by log size AND alphabet) > > * Sort alfabetically (only sort alphabetically) > > ------ > > * Sort ascending (do all the sorting of contacts from top down) > > o Sort descending (do all the sorting of contacts from bottom up) > > ------ > > [v]Use contactgroups (use groups, don't just put in > > online/offline groups) > > [v]Group offline contacts (use what we now call the hybrid mode) > > > > etc. > > > > I know from a developpers point of view it might sound dull to have to > > "alphabetical sorting" also "on" even when the option isn't called so but > > you should think from the interface/user's standpoint. > > > > > two things : > 1 - I don't like the "use contactgroups" and I know it's just a name you > came up with, but I'm not sure any other naming would make it clear and > intuitive to users that you need to enable a checkbox to see your groups, > otherwise, it will be online/offline groups... > > 2 - the sort by status should also be checkbox-able. I just made a change so > that the sort by status takes precedence over the sort by logsize, as > requested in the forums.. if you do 'sort by logsize' and you don't have the > 'sort by status' enabled, then you would see the people you talk to the most > on top, even if they are offline (assuming you use group sorting), which is > not very good (from our dear user's point of view). > > Also, I like the idea of "sort by log size" because it's clear, it says what > >> it does, people won't get confused... while a user might say "why isn't it > >> working" while he has logs disabled... logically, a 'sort by how much I > >> talk > >> to them' would mean that amsn would keep an internal counter on how many > >> times we opened the chat window with that contact... > > > > > > That was not my meaning. I asked for English speaking ppl to help out as I > > can't say what I want clearly :). "Sort by chat log size" sounds ok for me > > now. > > > > > > > >> > >> what are your thoughts ? > > > > > > > > They're up here :). BTW: I somewhere(in your nick?) read you're allmost > > getting married. Congrats! > > > > Thanks :) > > > > About this mail subject: possibly my idea will only get through if I code > > it myself (put my code where my mouth is ;)) but I on't have any time for it > > soon so chances are 0 I will. > > I hope you get my point though :). > > > > > > I also hope not to sound arrogant or whatever (I'm always afraid for this > > when speaking another language). > > > > never :) > > Friendly greeting, > > > > Karel. > > > >> > >> > >> KaKaRoTo > >> > >> On 6/1/08, Karel Demeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Forgot the option how to sort groups. Here's the whole thing now: (for > >>> info, check the other mail) > >>> > >>> Sort contacts => > >>> o Sort by status > >>> o Sort by how much I talk to them > >>> * Sort alfabetically > >>> ------ > >>> * Sort ascending > >>> o Sort descending > >>> ------ > >>> [v]Use contactgroups > >>> [v]Group offline contacts > >>> [ ]Hide offline group > >>> [v]Group non-IM contacts > >>> [ ]Hide non-IM group > >>> ------- > >>> Change appearance of contacts ... > >>> ------- > >>> * Sort groups ascending > >>> o Sort groups descending > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2008/6/1 Karel Demeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2008/6/1 Tom Hennigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> > >>>>> How about a radical re-shuffle of the View menu? > >>>>> > >>>>> View => > >>>>> Sort groups by => > >>>>> Status > >>>>> Groups > >>>>> Hybridsort > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> How can you sort groups by status? They don't have a status themselves, > >>>> right ? > >>>> > >>>> Sort contacts by => > >>>>> Ascending > >>>>> Descending > >>>>> ---------------- > >>>>> Status > >>>>> How much I talk to them > >>>>> Show as => > >>>>> Nickname > >>>>> Email > >>>>> Group contacts => > >>>>> Offline (IE. Hybrid) > >>>>> Non-IM > >>>>> Hide groups => > >>>>> Non-IM > >>>>> Offline > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> There's too many submenu's this way IMHO. I cant recall what most > >>>> guidelines say about this now but I think having a submenu for a choice > >>>> between 2 things is "not done" > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Move "Change Global Nick" to Actions menu. > >>>>> > >>>> This is and should stay a "View" thing as it changes the "view" of the > >>>> CL. The menu title is not "view" as in the verb. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> What about: > >>>> > >>>> Sort contacts => > >>>> o Sort by status > >>>> o Sort by how much I talk to them > >>>> * Sort alfabetically > >>>> ------ > >>>> * Sort ascending > >>>> o Sort descending > >>>> ------ > >>>> [v]Use contactgroups > >>>> [v]Group offline contacts > >>>> [ ]Hide offline group > >>>> [v]Group non-IM contacts > >>>> [ ]Hide non-IM group > >>>> Change appearance of contacts ... > >>>> (clicking this pops up a window to change the "global nick" where > >>>> you > >>>> can alo choose to only show the email-adress) > >>>> > >>>> This way th "View" menu would only have 2 items, the first being that > >>>> subenu. THe "o" and "*" are radio buttons where the latter is the > >>>> default > >>>> selected item. the "[ ]" and "[v]" are checkboxes where the latter is a > >>>> default checked item. > >>>> > >>>> I don't have too much time for a lengthy discussion about this so if > >>>> there's too much worng with this idea, just discard it. I hope it's well > >>>> thought-out though :p. > >>>> > >>>> cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Karel. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> - Tom > >>>>> > >>>>> On 1 Jun 2008, at 12:49, Karel Demeyer wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Another note: this wording is like what I was aming for in my other > >>>>> mail :). > >>>>> Sort contacts by: > >>>>> group > >>>>> status > >>>>> hybrid > >>>>> how much I talk to them > >>>>> > >>>>> If those native english speakers here (they all seem to be called "Tom" > >>>>> somehow) could find anything shorter that says the same thing it would > >>>>> be > >>>>> superb. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> Karel. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2008/6/1 Tom Hennigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>>> > >>>>>> How about: "Sort Contacts by how much I talk to them" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just a thought, if logging is disabled, then we don't have a record of > >>>>>> how much people talk to them.. So the option won't do anything.. The > >>>>>> menu > >>>>>> item should not be there if logging isn't enabled (or at least > >>>>>> disabled)... > >>>>>> - Tom > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 1 Jun 2008, at 11:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2008/6/1 Youness Alaoui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> added the UI for.. anyone care to comment ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hey, > >>>>>> I'm hardly ever on msn anymore, but I noticed in the commit the lang > >>>>>> key is 'Sort by log size' - I think 'Show people I talk to most > >>>>>> first' but > >>>>>> better worded would be good; this way newbies can see what the thing > >>>>>> is... > >>>>>> that way the command says _what_ it does, not _how_ it does it...make > >>>>>> sense? > >>>>>> Just my 2p! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tom > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:24:34AM -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote: > >>>>>>> > Hello... > >>>>>>> > I added a 'sort by log size' feature to aMSN.. question is.. > >>>>>>> > how should it be done in the UI to make it user-friendly.. I > >>>>>>> > thought have the 'sort by log size' checkbox next to 'sort > >>>>>>> > ascending' and 'sort descending' but those two act more like > >>>>>>> > radio buttons than checkboxes, so adding a third, > >>>>>>> > non-radio-like-behavior option would not fit... > >>>>>>> > Karel.. any ideas ? > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > KaKaRoTo > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > ----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Log Message: > >>>>>>> > ----------- > >>>>>>> > New feature : sort by log size.. very nice to see the most often > >>>>>>> talked to people at the top of your CL. > >>>>>>> > enable-able with the console, GUI will come soon once we decide how > >>>>>>> to put it nicely and 'user-friendly'... > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Modified Paths: > >>>>>>> > -------------- > >>>>>>> > trunk/amsn/config.tcl > >>>>>>> > trunk/amsn/protocol.tcl > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Amsn-devel mailing list Amsn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
