[Gossip-dev] 0.11 Feedback

[Michael Gratton]

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 14:43 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> However, that doesn't work very well when taking multiple chat windows
> into account.

Yeah, that is a problem.

>  Ie. I might have one window with work related chats in and
> another with private discussions. These windows might have different
> sizes, which one would you save?

Well, by saving one of those sizes, you reduce the amount of work the
user needs to do by half - assuming one of those window sizes is not the
default size.

I guess this is just a problem with using a tabbed interface by default.
If Gossip opened a new window for each user chat, then it could be saved
per contact. But I think that is a bad idea /and/ I don't want to ignite
that flamewar again.

Maybe a good compromise would be to save the default window per contact
anyway and if that contact causes a new window to be opened (either by
being the first chat opened, or by being dragged off to form a new
window), then use the saved size for teh new window. The saved window
size for a contact would be updated when a chat window for that contact
is resized, either by the user adjusting the window size or by the user
dragging the tab to a different chat window, but not when a chat is
started (unless it has no previous saved window size).

So using your example you would see this sort of behaviour:

1. A personal chat starts, a chat window is opened using the saved size
for that contact.
2. A business chat starts. A new tab is opened in the same window but
the user drags it off to create a new chat window. It has the size
specified by that business contact.
3. A new business contact is added to your roster and starts a chat. It
is added to the personal chat window but gets dragged to the busineess
chat window, so has the dimensions of the business window saved.
4. Later, all chat windows have been closed, but the new contact starts
a new chat, so it opens a new window the same size as the previous
business chat window.

This seems like a lot of work and I don't know how feasible it is, but I
think the result would be pretty rocking.

/mike

-- 
✌ michael gratton, itinerant geek
✇ <http://web.vee.net/>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.imendio.com/pipermail/gossip-dev/attachments/20060511/3a9cb7bc/attachment.pgp