iChat, one man's meat ...
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 8 Dec 2009 05:32 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:00:12 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) > wrote: > > > >> But it's like suddenly realising you have been driving around with the > >> sun visor down in your car since you got it. You probably would > >> realise it's pertinence if you saw the better solution and by better > >> it's not like the OSX / XP icon 'beauty' where it's down to a personal > >> appreciation of such things but something that would make a difference > >> (however small) to everyone using it (if they cared or not). > > > >Surely that is the same thing? > > Erm, not to my mind. > > The 'detail' of an icon (assuming it was readable and disenable etc) > has little impact on it's role of an icon. > > Not having an indicator in the same location as the incoming text is a > functionality thing. Like having a GPS in yer field of view or not. > Yes you can use it practically anywhere within sight but it's no as > safe / natural as when its in your natural field of view (IMHOA). No. If I didn't have a GPS in my field of view it would be a bit useless and I wouldn't be able to put up with that. Not having whatever it is you need on an IM to let someone know who is typing is different in that I have never had a problem knowing someone was typing, so don't see how it could help, I have always found it completely obvious. Now I can see with all these threads that it causes you some kind of a problem, so I can see you would be concerned about it, but to me, I have no idea where this thing is, other than I never noticed it was wrong (and trust me, I do notice wrong things!) > >As I said, I haven't ever had a problem knowing someone was typing to me > >on IM. Maybe there is a better way but as I have never noticed a > >difference I dont' see how it could help. > > Ok, I was using Trillian this morning and unsure if the chatee was > typing to me or not. Then I looked around the client and 'found' the > doohickey. ok, I can see why it would concern you if you had to look round and find this thing, I never had so... > >It is certainly nothing I would actively seek out a solution to, as it > >has caused me exactly no problem! > > And you don't miss what you have never had. I guess not, or in my case you don't need to fix what isn't broke > >> It would > >> be like a home phone that was comfortable to hold or fitted your head > >> nicely etc. You would cope with 'any' phone but a nice one is nicer > >> (but you may never consider it). > > > >Yes, I know what you mean. So for me it is like using windows when I > >could be using a mac, and for you probably the oposite. > > Indeed. > > > > > >to be honest, I just generally use the phone. > > So do we now we use 18185 etc. We have a plan that calls to canada. Calls to the UK are so vanishingly cheap compared to what they used to be in the bad old days that it is really not worth worrying about. > >> Me neither but my HOSTS file deals with them. ;-) > > > >Certainly couldn't be bothered with that much effort when I can just use > >a different client that I find better anyway. > > 'That much effort' ... download (1s), run batch file (1s). ;-) You can decide you want to be rid of an advert and 2 seconds later be free of them?? wow - that is amazing. I have never heard of someone so good on the net they could do that. i mean it took me longer than 2 seconds to write this, let alone find a script to add to my hostfile, download it, check it wasn't doing something bad and install it! -- Woody
From: T i m on 8 Dec 2009 05:39 On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:32:21 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: <snip> >Now I can see with all these threads that it causes you some kind of a >problem, so I can see you would be concerned about it, but to me, I have >no idea where this thing is, other than I never noticed it was wrong >(and trust me, I do notice wrong things!) You can't see it so it doesn't exist as an issue for you. Best if we leave it there. > >> 'That much effort' ... download (1s), run batch file (1s). ;-) > >You can decide you want to be rid of an advert No, I decide I want to be rid of all things that are generally considered bad and can be dealt with via a HOSTS file. >and 2 seconds later be >free of them?? wow - that is amazing. It is. >I have never heard of someone so >good on the net they could do that. Sorry, you still haven't. > >i mean it took me longer than 2 seconds to write this, let alone find a >script to add to my hostfile, download it, check it wasn't doing >something bad and install it! <shrug> T i m
From: zoara on 8 Dec 2009 08:48 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > > > Also, do any of the multi IM clients also support Skype (for text > > chat > > at least)? > > I have never seen them doing so. Adium does, with a plugin. Trillian does. Fring does. So does Nimbuzz, which I've never heard of. > I guess there is something about skype > that you are not allowed to connect to without the client, which is > why > I can't use skype. I don't think any of the IM networks like you using a third-party client. But with Skype it seems like the reason it's not so widely implemented is because it's peer-to-peer so a bigger challenge to add than just plonking another IM protocol into the codebase. -zoara- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Woody on 8 Dec 2009 09:04 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Also, do any of the multi IM clients also support Skype (for text > > > chat > > > at least)? > > > > I have never seen them doing so. > > Adium does, with a plugin. Trillian does. Fring does. So does Nimbuzz, > which I've never heard of. Does it? That is handy if I find anyone who desparately has to use skype if I can use it on adium. I know that fring did, but that was a phone thing so it didn't seem relevant, they work a bit odd on the phone anyway. I guess it made sense that adium can have it with its plugins, I added facebook chat to it recently. I think I even have a skype account somewhere - a search of the email coming up! -- Woody
From: Woody on 8 Dec 2009 09:04
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Q, If that concept was so good, why isn't it implemented on more > > > > (any > > > > other?) IM clients? > > > > > > Because the guys that did iChat are *better* at interfaces than the > > > other guys? > > > > > > Which I think is true. > > > > In this case, compared to adium, I think they are way off the mark. > > I'd argue that iChat is a better user interface *for their target > market* than Adium. And this is from someone who hates iChat and loves > Adium. > > The chat bubbles - and their alignment / colouring - seem particularly > suited to the "just want to chat" crowd, as they clearly distinguish > "me" from "you". They make it a lot quicker to cast the eye upwards and > see what it was they just said a couple of moments ago that they're now > saying "haha lololol" to. > > It's interesting to note that a lot of IM apps (and text messaging apps) > are catching onto the chat colouring/alignment idea (and many the twee > bubbles as well). See the Palm Pre, IM+, Beejive and eBuddy > (multi-platform mobile IM clients), a few clients on Android, and of > course Adium and Trillian as you say. well, the chat colouring idea predates iChat by quite a long way. I am sure that earlier ICQs had it, certainly we had it on IRC in the mid 90s and possibly first class before that. > It always takes a while, but eventually a lot of people end up copying > what Apple makes mainstream. It seems like only the crappy clients built > by lumbering behemoths haven't yet caught up; Yahoo, AOL and MSN's > clients are the only ones I can find that don't implement this sort of > thing. MSN client has had colouring for a while. > > Adium is much better as an interface than iChat by default. but it > > also > > has the advantage of different networks, plus the ability to change > > your > > interface to one you prefer. > > The former is not a UI difference but a functional one. The latter is > not a sign of a good interface (though I did spend an enjoyable few > minutes customising Adium to be the way I want). It is a functional difference, yes. The latter isn't a sign of a good interface but does permit more flexibility in the interface to enable an interface that doesn't work for you to be fixed. > > And it has a duck icon, that even Rowland could recognise in a busy > > dock, rather than iChat which if I remember correctly is yet another > > blue round thing > > Heh. And it waves its wings about when you get a message. That makes it > worth every penny I paid for it... More importantly for me, it is a different colour depending on who is logged in, so I can work out if I am signed in upstairs! > > > Same way that for me the Mac UI is *better* than the Windows one, > > > because Apple are better and more creative than Microsoft. It > > > happens; > > > some people and groups are simply better than others. > > > > Next you will be saying that safari is better than firefox for the > > same > > reason! > > Oh, but it is. For Apple's target market... Again, I prefer Firefox, but > that doesn't mean it isn't a (more) flawed UI... Actually they are both flawed UIs but for different reasons -- Woody |