TB End Users survey - do not distribute

Axel axel.grude at googlemail.com
Fri Jul 20 15:43:56 UTC 2012


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*To: *"Tanstaafl"<tanstaafl at libertytrek.org>
*From: *"Patrick Cloke"<clokep at gmail.com>
*CC: *"tb-planning" tb-planning at mozilla.org
*Sent: *Friday, 20/07/12 15:53:39 15:53 GMT +0100 [Week 29]
*Subject:*Re: TB End Users survey - do not distribute
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl at libertytrek.org 
> <mailto:tanstaafl at libertytrek.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 2012-07-20 5:30 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org
>     <mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>> wrote:
>
>         It seems to me that the evidence is that IM/social integration is not
>         a heavily-desired feature, and people have trouble understanding what
>         that might even mean. Is that a fair conclusion from the data?
>
>         That doesn't mean people shouldn't do it, necessarily, but it does
>         mean that it would need careful defining of use cases and explanation
>         of benefits.
>
>
>     I would love to be able to initiate an IM session *with my preferred IM client*
>     directly from Thunderbird
>
> This is generally capable by using link / protocol handlers.  Most IM protocols have 
> some URI scheme associated with them.  Thunderbird could attempt to open links with 
> these with the OS and if your IM client supports them (and properly registers with 
> the OS), I think this should work OK.
>
>     - and maybe even have Thunderbird be able to reflect a Contacts status by
>     monitoring my preferred IM client that is running in the background. This would
>     most likely require the Address Book rewrite that has been planned for so long.
>
>     Why reinvent the wheel? It would make more sense to spend a lot less dev hours
>     on just figuring out a way to 'integrate' with the most popular IM clients (and
>     do it in a plug-in type fashion so that other users could write extensions to
>     support other IM clients if they wanted to).
>
> This would also require the IM client to provide this information in some way.  I 
> highly doubt that any IM clients do this (except maybe Telepathy) support this.  I 
> suppose you could make a plug-in for both the IM client and for Thunderbird, but 
> honestly that sounds like a lot more work to me.  Additionally, this would only be 
> reasonable for clients with some sort of plug-in infrastructure that can get 
> presence information.  It's also pretty difficult to find out which clients are 
> "popular" (you can't get information on this like you can for browsers as most 
> networks are proprietary). There are a few papers floating around that I or Florian 
> have come across about which networks / protocols are most popular; but not 
> necessarily what clients are popular.
I think the OP meant just to */fire up/* the IM client, without any further 
integration, that could probably be added "/fairly/" easily. (You would still have to 
look at command line / URI parameters of each client to figure our how to pass 
addressee info) However it wouldn't give you added perks such as online status of your 
Addressees.
>
> Also, if the numbers in that PDF are to be believed...Skype is the most popular and 
> they're not much fun to integrate with. :)
But probably also most rewarding as they support voice as their main medium; I think 
this would be a good project for an Add-on, not for core. Why not ask the Skype 
developers to write one?
> "reinvent the wheel" seems pretty strong too, are the protocol code is shared with 
> Instantbird (and was first developed for, and is supported by Instantbird developers 
> as well as Thunderbird developers). The UI was mostly uplifted initially from 
> Instantbird and tweaked to fit into Thunderbird.  It isn't like huge sections of 
> code are being written from scratch here.
I liked what I am seeing so far... lets create a lightweight modeless window (or 
alternatively a dockable vertical pane, defaulted to right hand side of the mail3pane) 
similar to the usual clients (narrow) and push the content of the chats into that; I 
think it is a mistake to restrict chat contents to a tab, as it wastes too much 
valuable workspace.
> About IM in email clients in general...I agree with Vincent that I find it extremely 
> beneficial for work.  It's less intrusive than calling, but more immediate than 
> email.  Having the presence information is nice if you want to walk down to 
> someone's office, although opening up the actual contact list shows that as well. 
Contact list of /*what*/? Is Thunderbird supporting presence already? Or are you 
talking about the other IM clients?
> I find that the combination of Microsoft Outlook + Lync (Office Communicator) is 
> /far/ superior to Thunderbird (+ any instant messaging client).
+1 as well.
> Support for initiating phone calls or IMs directly from an email is clutch, as well 
> as fully integration of free/busy from the calendar (and also integrated with 
> presence information).  Ironically, this is probably an area that Thunderbird could 
> choose to be innovative in.
+1 from me.

And you could potentially later on /"bolt on"/ screen sharing, which is a hugely 
expanding market. Has anybody of you guys tried teamViewer 
<http://www.teamviewer.com/en/index.aspx>? It's the fastest that I have tried so far...

Axel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20120720/770a2dcd/attachment.html>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list