Check your default window size!

[mcatanzaro]

Hi,

Sometimes it's easy for a developer to forget what a new user sees when 
opening an app for the first time. Some of our apps (*cough* email 
clients *cough*) have default window sizes that are waaay too small. 
Check yours out! Increase the default window size if needed.


Michael
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Making a phone call with GNOME

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 19:13 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 at 10:39:39 +, Bob Ham wrote:
> > My colleague François Téchené recently wrote a blog post³ proposing a
> > unified UX using a "feature"-based approach rather than an
> > application-based approach.  This proposal comes from the ideas of
> > Ethical Design⁴.  The technological underpinnings of this UX are already
> > largely extant in Telepathy.
> 
> Unfortunately, the technological underpinnings of that UX are also a
> large part of why Telepathy is no longer actively developed. Designing
> an abstraction across protocols that are not "the same shape" is really
> hard. Maintaining that abstraction in Telepathy soaked up a lot of
> developer time, and the need to keep that abstraction API-stable made it
> disproportionately hard to add new features (which is why, as previously
> noted, Telepathy had trouble keeping up with "modern XMPP": adding a
> new feature required touching at least three projects, and making it
> API-stable often required investigating multiple protocols to make sure
> the API would fit them all).

Going back to the discussion last year, again this is one of the
aspects that Pidgin/libpurple handles fairly decently. It supports
multiple protocols through its messaging and media APIs, with various
underlying feature sets.

Now that I spend *most* of my work conference call time in Pidgin, I'm
thinking of adding voice call support to its SIP protocol plugin. My
USB wireless headset is nicer than my DECT one :)



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Making a phone call with GNOME

[Simon McVittie]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 at 12:18:30 +, Bob Ham wrote:
> On 15/03/18 19:13, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > the hard division between one-to-one
> > messages and chatrooms in XMPP is unlike the variable-number-of-users
> > "switchboards" in the now-defunct MSNP.)
> 
> Out of interest, does Telepathy expose that difference?  To me, that
> kind of distinction seems like an implementation detail that I would
> expect to be abstracted away.

Yes, Telepathy exposes that difference, because it matters. You can't[1]
have an XMPP conversation with two peers without joining a (named)
chatroom. Even if *you* send every message to both of those peers,
their clients won't know that they should send replies to both you and
the other peer.

In contrast, on MSNP, you could start a two-party conversation and later
decide to invite a third person. A high-quality client would provide
UI for this (I think Empathy does, or did); and even if your UI doesn't
expose a menu option for that, it still needs to be able to deal with
the other party inviting a third person, and indicate to you that your
messages are now going to them as well.

There's no way we could have designed this correctly in Telepathy without
being aware of protocol quirks like these, and indeed this API wasn't
present in our first attempts (initially we could only represent
one-to-one conversations and named chatrooms, like in XMPP and IRC).

smcv

[1] using baseline XMPP without uncommon extensions that, in practice,
result in creating an XMPP MUC chatroom with a meaningless
machine-generated name (which a high-quality UX should hide from
the user because it means nothing to them)
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Making a phone call with GNOME

[Bob Ham]

On 15/03/18 19:13, Simon McVittie wrote:

> the hard division between one-to-one
> messages and chatrooms in XMPP is unlike the variable-number-of-users
> "switchboards" in the now-defunct MSNP.)

Out of interest, does Telepathy expose that difference?  To me, that
kind of distinction seems like an implementation detail that I would
expect to be abstracted away.


> If the UX that your users expect is very much "the same shape" for a
> pair of protocols, then perhaps it makes sense to have an abstraction
> across those protocols; but is that really the case for all of them?

Good question.  You tell me? :-)

I asked a friend of mine if I could observe her using WhatsApp.  To me
it looks a lot like, if not exactly like an SMS/MMS messaging program.
And I would imagine Facebook's Messenger program.  And no doubt lots of
other messaging programs.  There doesn't seem to be any difference in
the basic UX.  Group conversations, one-to-one conversations, text,
emojis, pictures, videos, possibly VoIP.

Of course, I don't have the depth of protocol knowledge that Telepathy
developers like yourself built up so perhaps my view is naive.

Cheers,

Bob

-- 
Bob Ham 

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list