[OTR-users] New gaim-otr and otrproxy ready for beta testing

[CLAY SHENTRUP]

i just had another thought. i remember somoone's saying "otr state is not
binary". the problem, i think, in finding the right icon scheme has been
that there are really two totally distinct states being specified. one state
is verified, which is binary. the other is encrypted, which is binary, but
you want to also specify whether the previous state had been encrypted when
showing unencrypted state, making it effectively ternary.

so what about the idea of making the graphical indicator split up these two
concepts somehow. you could have verification state specified by something
like a full color face if verified or a silhouette with a question mark if
not. or something along those lines.

then beside this you could have an icon like a lock (but not a lock of
course) that would specify encrypted, unencrypted, or
unencrypted-but-previously-encrypted. again, that third state seems
superfluous. the behavior is important--you want to make sure a warning goes
up if someone tries to send cleartext, forcing him to verify that he really
wants to do it. you don't want someone to accidentally type clear text
because he didn't notice that the conversation is no longer encrypted. but
as for the icon's being different, i don't see the utility in that. why not
just make the icon revert back to "unencrypted"? is there really a need to
visually represent "you're not encrypted, but you just were previously"?
maybe the consensus is against me here, but i just thought i'd raise that
point for discussion. talk amongst yourselves..i'm feeling verklempt.

clay

NUMBER OF COALTION SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ AS OF OCT 25, 2005: 2000
SEE THEIR NAMES HERE: http://icasualties.org/oif/US_NAMES.aspx

SEE THE CIVILIAN TOLL HERE: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051026/c1fd767e/attachment.html>