GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 200887
should use customised icons for different message types
Last modified: 2012-02-10 16:49:44 UTC
We should use art/meeting.xpm for iMIP messages. Maybe this could be in the attachment column rather than the status column (which would let you tell when you replied to it too.) Maybe there could be many kinds of attachment icon... ?
I think having different envelope icons would be a cool idea, they could give hints as to what is in the message? Like we could have a ribbon for a multipart/signed/encrypted part and so on?
Or a key. Problem is what do you do if you have signed, but not attachemtn, or attachemnt + signed + imip + vcard? (still, I agree!)
I remember a long time ago there being an idea about custom icons for custom tags. Like the icons we have for categories in the addressbook and calendar (are those actually hooked up yet?) We could break with Outlook and come up with some way to have multiple icons per message. Perhaps stick them on the right end of the Subject field? (Then you'd get 16 pixels more of the Subject on messages with no attachments/tags of any sort, too :)
feature = future
Created attachment 40885 [details] mockup of my idea
(ettore just cvs rm'ed art/meeting.xpm but it could be resurrected if we implemented this.)
*** bug 214080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
made the comment match the discussion better. fwiw the mockup looks cool but implementing would require a new cell type which might be a lot of work (maybe not if it can inherit from text as a sub-cell).
(NZ: Yes, 14080 is a dup of this. The Nautilus emblems are the little badges you can stick on in the Properties dialog; we might do well to reuse the artwork for consistency and convenience.)
Hm... there's an ECellVBox that merges multiple ECells vertically. Shouldn't be too hard to make an ECellHBox
Hmm I wrote a ECellHBox for the double line messagelist for the list view. It should be possible now.
Attachment column in message list pane displays a "handshake" icon for a message containing a meeting request (itip) in 3.2.2. Enough to close this as "works for me"?
(In reply to comment #12) > Enough to close this as "works for me"? you can safely assume that I have no opinion either way about any remaining old evolution bugs I filed.
Okay. :)