Feature Requests item #1669311, was opened at 2007-02-26 11:31
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rlaager
You can respond by visiting: 

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: gtk-ui
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: rsk254 (rsk254)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Enhanced functionality of ignoriblocking while in chat rooms

Initial Comment:
1. A toggle switch.  When set to "off", ignored and unignored
users both appear on the room's roster (with the former noted
with an X), just as they are today.  When set to "on", ignored
users are not shown at all.

Reason: in many Yahoo chat rooms, bots outnumber real users
2:1, 3:1, or 4:1.  There seems little need to display them as present if 
they're being ignored.

2. On the same pulldown menu which now includes "info"
and "ignore" -- among other options -- include "block".

Reason: having identified a user as a bot, I'd like to be able
to remove it from my sight permanently.   Reason for keeping
"ignore" around as well: "ignore" is temporary, "block" is forever.

3. Add the ability to apply pulldown menu actions to users
by clicking on their handle in the chat itself.  (My guess
is that this may not be as good an idea as I thought it was
at first, but I'm throwing it in for consideration anyway.)

Reason: avoids the need to scroll the room roster to locate
the user.


>Comment By: Richard Laager (rlaager)
Date: 2007-03-02 21:25

Logged In: YES 
Originator: NO

I just did some research on this...

This wouldn't be hard to implement, but it would be amazingly inefficient
given the current architecture. We're storing the list of ignored users as
a list, separate from the list store that tracks the users in the
conversation. The only benefit I can see to that approach is that we can
re-ignore a user if the leave and rejoin. I think that we should keep a
separate ignore list just for that case, and use a bit in the list store
for the main case. We'd only ever have to look at the list on user joins.
Of course, on second thought, that's not necessarily going to be efficient

I'll look at this some more...


Comment By: rsk254 (rsk254)
Date: 2007-02-26 12:39

Logged In: YES 
Originator: YES

That (sorting ignored users to the bottom) is a really good idea.  And it
would mesh well with the sorting of buddies to the top.   So let me modify
my request to suggest that perhaps -- if it's a relatively lightweight
change -- that we try it and see how it works in practice.


Comment By: Richard Laager (rlaager)
Date: 2007-02-26 11:50

Logged In: YES 
Originator: NO

What if we just sorted ignored users to the bottom of the list?


You can respond by visiting: 

Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
Gaim-features mailing list

Reply via email to