headers
Remko Troncon | 1 May 2005 02:16

Re: Psi/Mac - The Ultimate Single Use Client


As a followup of the Psi/Mac thread: the new iChat has been officially 
released yesterday. Here's what it looks like:
	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/roster+chat.png
	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/roster+chatbubbles.png
The Jabber implementation seems quite decent. I even was able to send files 
from iChat to Psi.

I also took the liberty of taking some shots of the account setup:
	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/account1.png
	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/account2.png
This looks a lot like what i had in mind with the account setup: splitting
the dialog in a first tab with only the JID and the password, and have
server settings such as ports, SSL and other things such as the resource
in a separate tab. 

cheers,
Remko
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Maciek Niedzielski | 1 May 2005 10:01
Picon

Re: Re: Psi/Mac - The Ultimate Single Use Client

Remko Troncon wrote:

>As a followup of the Psi/Mac thread: the new iChat has been officially 
>released yesterday.
>The Jabber implementation seems quite decent. I even was able to send files 
>from iChat to Psi.
>  
>
I've heared it's not that good:
http://missig.org/julian/blog/2005/04/30/ichat-and-jabber/

--

-- 
Maciek
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Maciek Niedzielski | 1 May 2005 10:06
Picon

Re: Re: Re: Privacy

Remko Troncon wrote:

>>And one more detail: The text "if JID *is* 'spammers.com'" is probably 
>>not the best possible, since (AFAIK) a rule like this blocks all 
>>contacts from spammers.com.
>>    
>>
>I simply hate all people from spammers.com. You have to be evil to have
>a jabber account there.
>  
>
What I mean is: once I thought of blocking MSN's email notification 
using privacy lists. The idea was to block messages from 
msn.example.com. However, (if I understand the RFC correctly) a rule 
like this would also block messages from anything@...
This is why I say that it's not a good idea if our GUI would display it 
"JID *is* msn.example.com". "JID is from msn.example.com domain"  would 
probably be better.

--

-- 
Maciek
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Remko Troncon | 1 May 2005 10:23

Re: Re: Re: Privacy

> "JID *is* msn.example.com". "JID is from msn.example.com domain"  would 
> probably be better.

Technically, msn.example.com is a JID, but you're right, it's easy to
change the displaying of the rule based on whether it's a full JID
or not.

cheers,
Remko
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Maciek Niedzielski | 1 May 2005 10:59
Picon

Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy

Remko Troncon wrote:

>>"JID *is* msn.example.com". "JID is from msn.example.com domain"  would 
>>probably be better.
>>    
>>
>Technically, msn.example.com is a JID, but you're right, it's easy to
>change the displaying of the rule based on whether it's a full JID
>or not.
>
Yes, this is a JID, but when it's full JID, then the meaning is 
different that when it's full JID. So it's better if users know the 
difference without reading RFC, or they may - for example - disable a 
transport without knowing it.

--

-- 
Maciek
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MRAY | 1 May 2005 11:16
Picon

Re: Re: Psi/Mac - The Ultimate Single Use Client

Remko Troncon wrote:

>As a followup of the Psi/Mac thread: the new iChat has been officially 
>released yesterday. Here's what it looks like:
>	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/roster+chat.png
>	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/roster+chatbubbles.png
>The Jabber implementation seems quite decent. I even was able to send files 
>from iChat to Psi.
>
>I also took the liberty of taking some shots of the account setup:
>	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/account1.png
>	http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~remko/psi/forums/ichat/account2.png
>This looks a lot like what i had in mind with the account setup: splitting
>the dialog in a first tab with only the JID and the password, and have
>server settings such as ports, SSL and other things such as the resource
>in a separate tab. 
>
>cheers,
>Remko
>
>  
>
I would appriciate a solution that combines both, but emphasising the
JID and Password fields _heavily_ . Should do the trick and saves yet
another options screen.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jeroen Vaes | 1 May 2005 12:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: Privacy

I gave it some more thought, and finally came up with 2 solutions.

The first one is like the original one, only a little more advanced. It 
consists of 2 lists, one with the roster contacts and one for the rest where 
you can define more advanced rules:
<http://users.telenet.be/jvaes/psi/psi-privacy3-1.png>
<http://users.telenet.be/jvaes/psi/psi-privacy3-2.png>
You can add items to the last list, for example to make more general rules. 
The first three rules are fixed and can't be deleted.

On the other hand we have this:
<http://users.telenet.be/jvaes/psi/psi-privacy4.png>
It's kind of a hybrid between Remko's proposal and mine. It also depends on 
the concept of "rules" but is more inituitive IMO. "Add rule" brings up the 
screen on the right which you can use to add a "rule" to the list. On the 
list you define what should be blocked/allowed (icon on = blocked, icon off = 
allowed). It's easier to change existing rules this way, and it's clearer to 
present them.

On both screens I replaced the term "list" with "preset" as I think that's a 
more appropriate word to describe it, certainly in the first screen as there 
is no real "list" to define. I also removed the "make default"-button and 
replaced it with checkboxes to make the preset default for all sessions or 
only this one.

Personally I still prefer the first one. It's less work to change rules, it's 
clearer, it doesn't need an extra window to add a rule, etc. I also think 
dialogs like the second one become quite cluttered and difficult to 
understand if a user has collected a high number of rules (20+), which they 
are bound to do over the years. But maybe we can reach a compromise this way.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Jeroen Vaes | 1 May 2005 12:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: Privacy

On Saturday 30 April 2005 23:31, MRAY wrote:
> (I'm also 100% of barts opinion that this seems to be a typical coder
> vs. enduser discussion. I'm not a coder.)

I'm actually a coder myself (I lack good C++/Qt knowledge however, so I won't 
be hacking Psi just yet). For me, personally, the other dialogs would be good 
enough. But I don't think it would be a good idea to enforce this on all 
users. I've even seen IT-students struggle with creating good rules for a 
firewall, which is kind of the same principle, so I doubt a normal user (mom 
& dad) can master it.

--

-- 
Jeroen Vaes
Mail: jeroen.vaes@...
Jabber: jeroenv@...
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Remko Troncon | 1 May 2005 12:52

Re: Privacy

> firewall, which is kind of the same principle, so I doubt a normal user (mom 
> & dad) can master it.

Then explain to me why all major e-mail clients have rulesets *exactly* like 
this ?

cheers,
Remko
Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Jeroen Vaes | 1 May 2005 13:13
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Privacy

On 1 May, 2005, at 12:52, Remko Troncon wrote:

>> firewall, which is kind of the same principle, so I doubt a normal 
>> user (mom
>> & dad) can master it.
>
> Then explain to me why all major e-mail clients have rulesets 
> *exactly* like
> this ?

How many "normal" users actually *use* that functionality? E-mail 
filtering is only used by advanced users, as it is a feature you only 
have to use if you get lots of mail. But this is privacy we're talking 
about, that's a feature everyone should be able to use.

--

-- 
Jeroen Vaes
Mail: jeroen.vaes@...
Jabber: jeroenv@...
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |

Gmane