"Maybe there could be an options of:
1. Allowing the user to choose whether he or she wants to join the group
conversation or not
2. Allowing the user to block all incoming group conversation
invitations. This is if you don't want to join any group conversations
period."
I've actually suggested this directly to Microsoft a long time ago but
obviously they're too busy "innovating" on gross color schemes and
putting on ads on the main window to block your vision. But good idea,
but your viewpoint is that B should be permissioned to join the group
conversation.
On the other side of the coin, what about the group should be
permissioned to add B to the group conversation?
I find the latter to be more often the case. Say if B had C blocked, and
A is having a convo with C. Now A wants B to join the group convo.
OK, with today, A adds you (B) and C will know that you've blocked
him/her. There's absolutely no respect and privacy for B (I figure how
MSN got their privacy innovation awards).
What the dialog box should display is a list of names, with people B
blocked listed first and with the words (Blocked). So that B can make an
informed decision as to whether he'll/she'll take risk blowing cover.
If B accepts, the group convo will display the usual "whoever joined the
conversation". If B declines, only the person who invited the person
will be notified, *NOT THE WHOLE GROUP*, because that statement will
imply that B is appearing offline or blocked someone else in the convo.
Actually I'm now thinking of a "arbitrator" dialog box that should solve
both privacy and permission issues but in my mind it's going to look
complex. I'll post my idea in a new thread.
--
Nicholas...
"Overclock Your Life, Then The World"
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
