GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 652716
User menu: add "Visible on Chat" switch
Last modified: 2011-08-30 13:17:41 UTC
As discussed during the IM hackfest [1], the user menu should gain a "Visible on Chat" switch controlling IM status. - If the switch is one: status is either available or busy depending on the desktop status - if the switch is off: status is invisible, falling back to offline if the account doesn't support invisible (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38366) Note that we should first implement Telepahty integration support into the Shell to offer a decent experience if Empathy is not running. [1] https://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/IMContacts%20Social2011/Tasks/ShellDesignPresence
A quick mockup of this https://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/IMContacts%20Social2011/Tasks/ShellDesignPresence?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=user-menu-presence-sketch-on-a-whiteboard.jpeg
I looked at the possible implementation of this and we'd probably need remove the GSM_PRESENCE_STATUS_INVISIBLE status in gnome-session (it is _not_ a session status, ever, it's an IM status). Instead, the session could keep track of invisibility as a toggle/boolean.
Sure, we can do that. We might need to keep the invisible status for compatibility reasons, though -- since we have no clear idea of who else is using this dbus protocol. It'd just be something like "Available status + Invisible flag on".
I opened bug #653567 about adding the property in gnome-session.
Created attachment 190859 [details] screenshot I started implementing this. It looks like that.
See also bug #652837 which is another answer to the same proble.
I don't really like this approach. * It leaves IM status and the more general notification inhibit functionality muddled. (Different functionality should have different controls. Light switches that also controlled your microwave would be considered bad design - this is exactly the same.) * It introduces additional complexity and creates confusing combinations of IM status. What does busy + not visible on chat mean, for example? A single modal control for IM status is simple and easy to understand. This approach is familiar to people who use IM.
(In reply to comment #7) > I don't really like this approach. ... Also: * Controls for affecting IM should be consistent with one another, and this combination of widgets will be difficult to put in other places. Do you expect to have 'Visible on chat' in Empathy, for example?
Ok, we are discussing between Guillaume's proposal: http://bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=190859 and Allan's: http://bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=190211 To be clear, I prefer Allan's, but I'll try to summarize both. It seems to me that Guillaume's proposal is mainly IM focused and thus it's a quite traditional IM status chooser. This proposal doesn't allow the user to set himself Unavailable, i.e. disconnect from the IM network. Allan's proposal goes beyond what IM applications usually provide, since it factors in the Shell feature that allows people to request to not be notified (IM and system notifications). Guillaume's proposal may also allow that with the Busy status but it's not as explicit since Allan's makes that an orthogonal switch hinting the user that this is more than IM status. Allan's proposal doesn't allow what's requested on this bug report though. And this is something that needs decision here. Do we want to allow the connected but no visible on IM networks status? My opinion is that it creates an asymmetry among IM network users. I personally don't like when someone comes up talking to me when I see them as offline. The fact that IM protocols allow it doesn't mean we should use it.
(In reply to comment #7) > I don't really like this approach. > > * It leaves IM status and the more general notification inhibit functionality > muddled. (Different functionality should have different controls. Light > switches that also controlled your microwave would be considered bad design - > this is exactly the same.) Right, as said in https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=652837#c11 if we agree to remove the concept of "desktop presence" then that doesn't make sense any more. > * It introduces additional complexity and creates confusing combinations of IM > status. What does busy + not visible on chat mean, for example? A single modal > control for IM status is simple and easy to understand. This approach is > familiar to people who use IM. If you are not visible, you just don't appear on IM. > * Controls for affecting IM should be consistent with one another, and this > combination of widgets will be difficult to put in other places. Do you expect > to have 'Visible on chat' in Empathy, for example? No, Empathy is still there to offer the full range of IM features for people needing those. (Maybe we should merge those 2 bugs as we are really discussing the same questions in 2 different places. :)
The only problem I can see that it is trying to solve is to provide an 'Invisible' IM status option. That can be easily accommodated within the approach described in bug #190211 and does not require a switch to be added. I have no idea why adding an additional modal option is easier to understand or allows you to do something that a single option does not. Are we catering to people with split personalities who want to be simultaneously available and invisible? I'm very confused about this whole proposal.
Closing as a dup of bug #653567 as it solves the same problem in a different way. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 653567 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 652837 ***