{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#} To reply to the author, write to David Remahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> David,
>
> It looks great. But I have a couple questions/concerns.
That's the reason I posted it here!
> First, this should definitely be a preference that you can turn off. I
> think the icon just looks too cluttered. When I log in, I know what
> services I've logged in to, and I don't know that I'd need to be constantly
> glancing down at the dock to see which services are connected. It would
> help show when one service unexpectedly drops offline, but then I'd have to
> stop and think which dots were lit up before, and which one isn't now...
> What about a "You have been disconnected from X" notification window (the
> racing stripe kind)?
Yes, this would just be a fast way to make sure everything looks ok. It
should -definitely- be optional, and turned of per default, just as the
number-of-users badge. It is as it is currently. One has to turn on two
defaults manually to make it show.
> Second, I'm already working on reflecting the current status (Away, Idle,
> Busy, etc.) in the dock icon. This probably won't conflict, since the badge
> can just be placed on top of whatever the icon is.
Cool! We'll just have to make sure we don't use the same spot on the icon.
As my changes are checked in, you cane see how I arranged in the icon
updating method, to allow for more than the number-of-users icon badge.
> Third, and perhaps my strongest concern, is that this will reinforce the
> one-login-per-service limitation that Fire currently has. I'm not trying to
> imply that this is going to change any time soon, but I don't want to
> introduce a spiffy new feature that's going to break when/if Fire does get
> the ability to support multiple logins per service. Perhaps an online
> services dot?
Yes...This could be a later issue to deal with though, as you say...There
may be cool ways to display multiple logins too...We'll think of something,
I'm sure! You have made Fire _soooo_ great and I'm thrilled to see it
continue evolve and possibly contribute to it as well.
/ david
> Colter
>
> On 1/19/02 12:51, "Ernest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> {#} To reply to the author, write to Ernest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Pleasepleaseplease include this! This is HEAVENLY!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Remahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> {#} To reply to the author, write to David Remahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I downloaded the new release of Fire yesterday, and was amazed to see how
>>> incredibly it has evolved since the Public Beta days when I last checked it
>>> out seriously. ICQ support is now terrific, and the GUI is superior to any
>>> of the other clones!
>>>
>>> So, when I saw how cool it had become, I instantly felt an urge to help make
>>> it even better. So, I checked out the source over anonymous CVS and browsed
>>> the source for a while. Then I made a modification that you may want to
>>> include in an upcoming version.
>>>
>>> Take a look at these pictures:
>>>
>>> http://www.ittpoi.com/allservices.jpg
>>> http://www.ittpoi.com/onlyactive.jpg
>>>
>>> As you can see, what I did was to add a visual indication of what services
>>> are online to the icon, to complement the online user display. This is about
>>> 30 minutes worth of work, so it isn't exactly refined, and even though I
>>> coded in defaults for it, I haven't made a suitable GUI for it, mainly
>>> because I wanted to hear if the moderators would like it to become a feature
>>> in a future version. If you do, I would gladly make the additional
>>> adjustments to facilitate the feature.
>>>
>>> Maybe the non-active services should also be drawn in their circles, but at
>>> .4 opacity or in black and white or something like that...
>>>
>>> I hade to change the structure a little bit in the dock icon updating, in
>>> order to allow for this feature. I added a method and moved a few things
>>> around in the user number drawing. It shouldn't be difficult at all to
>>> integrate, though.
>>>
>>> So, Eric, would you like something like this, or should I scrap the idea and
>>> find something else to do? :)
>>>
>>> / Sincerely, David Remahl
{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
