I would've liked a system with two icons: the shiny new icons for buddy status, plus a second icon that just indicates protocol. Either side-by-side or an overlay (e.g. protocol icon scaled down and superimposed over the top-left corner of the status icon) would be lovely. And the protocol icon should, of course, be optional.
I like the idea of removing protocol specific icons; As, I want to chat with steve, I don't want to chat with him on MSN or on Yahoo!, it doesn't matter to me what protocol he is using (unless I want to do something protocol specific, which isn't much in pidgin).
When we chat, we don't just send messages from "person" a to "person" b: we participate in a complex system of internet cultures.
AIM has a different culture than MSN, which is different from Yahoo and Gmail, just like Facebook and MySpace have different cultures, but an overlapping user base. We behave differently based on context, and protocol is an important cue to context.
Having the information of which of your buddies, and how many, are connected via which protocol at a glance is very useful for proper etiquette, as well as knowing the protocol (and screen name--which is a method of self-expression) of the person you are chatting with.
The Pidgin team seems to have discounted the cultural aspect of protocols, has decided that everyone "should" use their "person" paradigm for "don't-care-how" communication, and has made a policy decision to suppress the protocols. This is unfortunate.
Where you see discord, I see unity. Why should we treat some people differently because of the quality of their protocol? There is, or at least should be no "cultural aspect" of protocol, there is simply the "nature" of the people you choose to associate with on each.
It's just as easy to create a separate account (on the same protocol) for each type of person than it is to isolate them across networks.
Other than that, have well defined groups, use contacts and buddy-specific aliases, multiple accounts, and the Send To > menu. You can physically log off some accounts if you need to appear invisible to certain folks but not others.
I agree -- bad idea to drop the protocol-specific icons. Pidgin may be trying to "hide" the disperate communications methods -- but it can't. End users still need to know how to configure some of their buddies in AIM and others in Yahoo! Since they're aware of that (and have to be) they might like to know which is which clearly in the UI. Plus, some friends are on multiple systems and will show up multiple times. Now -- you might ask what the "use cases" are where a user really needs to know which protocol / system a friend is on, given that Pidgin doesn't tend to support system-specific functionality. I'll fully admit that's harder to come up with. I just know instinctively what I want in the UI (and I'm clearly not alone).
Perhaps the right answer is just to make it a configuration option.
Oh, and by the way, it's a bad idea to phrase these questions as negatives. Makes it confusing to know whether to click the agree or disagree buttons.
Discussion (6)
OK, I'll be the odd man out and disagree.
I would've liked a system with two icons: the shiny new icons for buddy status, plus a second icon that just indicates protocol. Either side-by-side or an overlay (e.g. protocol icon scaled down and superimposed over the top-left corner of the status icon) would be lovely. And the protocol icon should, of course, be optional.
Or, how about just having an option to use the uniform icons or protocol specific... even being able to color code them?
I like the idea of removing protocol specific icons; As, I want to chat with steve, I don't want to chat with him on MSN or on Yahoo!, it doesn't matter to me what protocol he is using (unless I want to do something protocol specific, which isn't much in pidgin).
When we chat, we don't just send messages from "person" a to "person" b: we participate in a complex system of internet cultures.
AIM has a different culture than MSN, which is different from Yahoo and Gmail, just like Facebook and MySpace have different cultures, but an overlapping user base. We behave differently based on context, and protocol is an important cue to context.
Having the information of which of your buddies, and how many, are connected via which protocol at a glance is very useful for proper etiquette, as well as knowing the protocol (and screen name--which is a method of self-expression) of the person you are chatting with.
The Pidgin team seems to have discounted the cultural aspect of protocols, has decided that everyone "should" use their "person" paradigm for "don't-care-how" communication, and has made a policy decision to suppress the protocols. This is unfortunate.
Where you see discord, I see unity. Why should we treat some people differently because of the quality of their protocol? There is, or at least should be no "cultural aspect" of protocol, there is simply the "nature" of the people you choose to associate with on each.
It's just as easy to create a separate account (on the same protocol) for each type of person than it is to isolate them across networks.
Other than that, have well defined groups, use contacts and buddy-specific aliases, multiple accounts, and the Send To > menu. You can physically log off some accounts if you need to appear invisible to certain folks but not others.
I agree -- bad idea to drop the protocol-specific icons. Pidgin may be trying to "hide" the disperate communications methods -- but it can't. End users still need to know how to configure some of their buddies in AIM and others in Yahoo! Since they're aware of that (and have to be) they might like to know which is which clearly in the UI. Plus, some friends are on multiple systems and will show up multiple times. Now -- you might ask what the "use cases" are where a user really needs to know which protocol / system a friend is on, given that Pidgin doesn't tend to support system-specific functionality. I'll fully admit that's harder to come up with. I just know instinctively what I want in the UI (and I'm clearly not alone).
Perhaps the right answer is just to make it a configuration option.
Oh, and by the way, it's a bad idea to phrase these questions as negatives. Makes it confusing to know whether to click the agree or disagree buttons.