"People are perfectly free to arrange their buddy list into groups that reflect the account or protocol, as well as turning on the protocol icons."
Is this different from setting a custom icon per contact? o.0 How can the protocol icons be turned on?!?? 2009/1/18 John Bailey <[email protected]>: > Jim Fenstemacher wrote: >> With respect to all of this I still would like to have the option to use >> the protocol icons instead of the "green dot", the way Gaim looked. I >> have a few reasons for this: >> >> 1. Icon simplicity: Current there are two icons displayed for each >> user, one to show their status and one to show their protocol. >> This could be simplified into one icon showing both, they way Gaim >> showed worked. > > This is blatantly false. The status icons we use currently are far simpler > than > the protocol icons used by versions prior to 2.0.0beta7. Previously, any > status > other than available was noted by having an emblem over the protocol icon, > making it harder to determine the status simply from the icon. It also > created > a mess of icons for the user to remember. Instead of simply one icon for > available, there were 12 (or however many protocols we supported at the time). > The same went for away, do not disturb, or any other status. This created > more > than 200 possible combinations that a user had to remember and visually > distinguish, compared to the far simpler handful of icons we have now. > >> 2. Aesthetics (for some) <snip> > > Aesthetics carried (and carries) precisely zero weight in this. > >> 3. Open source: This is open source software and as such is a >> collaborative project. It requires input from all parties to >> develop the best software that the community can. Simply ignoring >> part of that community and rejecting their ideas alienates part of >> the community. This is not the xxx behind an open source project. > > We have not ignired the community. We don't agree with this exceedingly tiny > vocal minority. We did listen; the fact that we didn't act on their demands > and > requests does NOT mean that we didn't listen or that we ignored anyone. > > There's an old adage in open source communities--if you don't like the > direction > of development, fork it. Anyone is welcome to do so. Of course, there's also > the fact that anyone who wants to change something in Pidgin is welcome to try > by submitting a patch. If we reject it, there's always the fork option to > fall > back on. > >> 4. Appease a small group: Again, I understand that this would only >> be helpful for a small group of users, but that was part of the >> idea behind the "green dot". While reading one of the tickets a >> developer mentioned that the "green dot" was implemented so that >> it would be easier for color blind people to use. This is a very >> small amount of the population (even though 2 of the developers >> are color blind). So part of the reason the "green dot" was >> implemented was to appease a small group of users. I think the >> implementing Gaim-style icons would appease an equally small group >> of users. > > The colorblindness issue is not nearly as important as it's made out to be. > It > is, however, a convenient side-effect. There were requests to implement > Adium-like status icons as well, and this satisfied those requests. There > were > also other reasons, such as not using trademarked images, making the icons > consistent, and so on. The decision had *many* components to it, not just the > few mentioned here. > >> 5. What the developers believe: The Gaim-style icons are no longer >> used because the developers do not believe people should use their >> program that way. I believe that end users should be able to use >> programs the way they see fit. This is a belief and I think the >> developers should respecteveryone's beliefs. They should not try >> to impose their beliefs on others (as with religion, political >> views, morals, etc.), but rather give the end user the option to >> use the program the way they believe it should be used. > > We're not forcing anyone to do anything. People are perfectly free to arrange > their buddy list into groups that reflect the account or protocol, as well as > turning on the protocol icons. It is, however, our right as the developers to > say no to any feature request or change demanded, requested, or suggested. > It's > also our right to say that adding options is out of the question. > >> Again, I completely understand why the "green dot" is used as opposed to >> Gaim-style icons. I am simply asking the the end user be given the >> option to use the icons they wish, no matter what their reason. I hope >> I have not been too long winded, I am simply voicing my opinion in the >> hopes that I can improve the program. If I knew anything about >> programming I would probably take the time to modify is myself, but >> unfortunately I do not. >> >> Thank you for taking the time to read this and hopefully you consider my >> opinion. > > We have already considered and rejected this change. The reasons have been > discussed on more than one occasion, and quite frankly we're tired of having > the > discussion with the exact same arguments. If someone can come up with an > original arugment that doesn't simply rehash arguments we've heard for the > last > two years, then they're welcome to participate in the discussion and see if > we're willing to change our minds then, but until then our original decision > stands. > > John > > > _______________________________________________ > Support mailing list > [email protected] > http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > > _______________________________________________ Support mailing list [email protected] http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
