Changing user icons
ooydoboora at gmail.com
Sun Jan 18 17:11:18 EST 2009
"People are perfectly free to arrange their buddy list into groups
that reflect the account or protocol, as well as turning on the
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 <rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org>:
> 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
> 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.
> Support mailing list
> Support at pidgin.im
More information about the Support