I'm trying this chat function from a mobile phone, and it works quite good. There is only a problem with the layout regarding the scrolling chat area. It won't put the chatbox in a fixed position,

@Ikke I'll flag that for a mod ... and hopefully @MarcGravell or @balpha will be along shortly

Or immediately before I get a chance :-)

@Ikke - we discussed that internally; our plan is to drop that scrolling.

Just have plain vertical layout, with the input box at the bottom.

Having it track the user's position is a: brittle between devices, and b: reduces screen space when you want to read history

that work for you?

@MarcGravell Nice I love out of sync servers. Thanks for fixing!

On the chat users page, if you type in a filter, it will do a search without requiring you to press enter. If you backspace to clear the filter, you do have to press enter to see the full list again. (Looks like this is a continuation of it not doing a search if you backspace to <3 chars). Perhaps if the string is empty it could go ahead and do the (non)search though.

@rchern yeah, there's actually another issue with that search -- I'll look at that this week. Thanks

10-4 (:

Here's my feedback: IT SUCKS!!!!!

Nah, just kidding..

Two Bugs

I can reply to removed messages

And if I reply in a message that is removed

The reply arrow still works.

Are either of those bugs?

That example is not a reply to a removed message, but a reply from... (for want of a better term).

@Richard, but you can reply to my 'removed' message

@devinb So I can.

But that wasn't my point :-)

Perhaps you didn't read my message, or it wasn't clear enough.

My example is of the "and"

if I reply IN a message that is removed.

Now I see... I blame the weather. :-)

@devinb What if I want to heckle someone for deleting a message? ;)

@George, use the @username syntax. You are still completely able to heckle them by name.

@devinb True, but that loses context. :D

A [removed] message has already lost the context.

@devinb I was referring to the messages around it, though I was assuming more message from that same user.

@George part of the point of removing a message is that you want it to be gone.

@devinb I certainly understand, though that doesn't necessarily invalidate my desire to heckle you for it. ;)

Am I getting on your nerves yet?

@George it would take quite a bit to get on my nerves. Any racism or sexism oughtta do it.

Ok, then I'm safe.

damn welsh women

@George, but you could just remove those messages, and no one would know.

Like so

LOL. Thanks for the demo. :P

@devinb If a message were replied to, and then the message was removed, what should happen to the reply?

That's a separate case.

I'm not even concerned with that.

@devinb - don't forget that history is available... " lakjds;lfkajsdlfkjadsf"

Not on removed itesm.

wait.

how did you DO that?

via the action-menu.. Do you not see it? maybe it is mod only...

It is certainly mod only.

I can see the revisions on edited items, but not removed items.

which, by the by, I wholly support.

Makes sense that the mods would need to see my deleted items, I might be spewing something vile, then removing the evidence.

@MarcGravell I agree with devin: you should totally make that available to everyone.

I wonder how effective it would be in comment arguments to start saying "I agree with foo: opposite of the argument foo is trying to make "

@Shog9 That's not what I said. And you're not a @Marc or @Balpha so you can't put words in my mouth.

@Shog9 - isn't that totally disagree?

@MarcGravell No, no... Pretty sure devin's 100% behind it

> @Shog9 That's exactly what I said. -- devinb

in regard to seeing revision history, I believe he said:

@Michael I disagree with you, I think StackOverflow is a great website, and it is not "a terrible lump of crap"

@devinb I disagree, a removed message could be both a reply and relied to -- forming a link in a chain of connected messages -- breaking it could lose even more context than the textual change. (OTOH for chat I think one should make removal hard... if you didn't want to say it, then don't.)

@Shog9 @devinb can clarify, but my interpretation is that it is the current behaviour that is supported.

Eats shoots and leaves.

@Richard There is no chain with a deleted message. The chain has been broken.

@Marc, On the status of the issues that I actually raised? Would those even be considered bugs?

The structure of links is still there, even if some of the content is gone. E.g. can see the replied to message is a reply to

The ones starting:

@Richard There are two separate things. First off, if I remove a message that was a reply.

Yes, I agree with you. Both shall be rectified.

This should remove the back-link, because there is no content. The reason we have a back link is to add context to a message ,but there is no longer a message to add context to.

@Marc. Thank you.

@devinb I disagree with that -- if it was an answer to one particular message, it's good to know that this message doesn't exist anymore

so people don't start wondering "what's he talking about?"

@balpha, my proposed solution is as follows.

If you delete a message which is a reply: the reply arrow disappears.

If you attempt to reply to a message which has been deleted: you cannot. You can also not flag or star.

(maybe flag)

If you already replied to a message that becomes deleted. Then your reply stays intact.

okay

yeah, that I can agree with.

The flag thing is kind of difficult, because you might try to flag it, but not flag it in time.

Basically, I'm advocating removal of the quick-action box and everything in it.

You can still flag for mod, if you choose.

there are sooo many deleted comments that i've wanted to star though...

Try reloading (hard F5)

All the removed messages here are mine :p I can't test.

someone delete something.

@balpha You're a great and talented developer.

@Marc. It totally worked.

hovers over the kick button

And Hey!

;p

@balpha it would be a tragic shame to lose any of your brilliant quips, but we must lose one in the name of science.

@devinb you asked for it

@balpha Is kick really only temporary? I can come right back in?

sure

just like on IRC

I haven't been on IRC in 13 years.

And no one ever kicked me, I was a perfect gentleman.

@balpha I completely did.

oh, that reminds me - try to kick me

fail

If i have text in the box, browser asks me if I want to leave. I click no, go on typing.

using greg's shiny irc toy?

irc toy?

ah, okay

that sounds dirty...

github.com/ghewgill/soirc

@Shog, good catch

@balpha so... I could have all the inflexibility of SO Chat with all the UI fail that is your average IRC client? WOW!

now that's a sales pitch

@Shog9 we can fix that...

@MarcGravell I think you should.

It would leave to a frustrating moderator experience.

Couldn't you just "delete" the text in the text box first, then kick?

@devinb - the code that prompts the user is ours. We can suppress it.

@Marc, I figured, I just meant there's two ways around the issue. You could suppress the dialog, which is adding an exception, or you could delete the text, which relies on behaviour which already exists.

Although your method should have (hopefully) fewer side effects.

I just want to be part of the team :p

@devinb they could also just put that bug wherein the room stops updating to good use, by kicking the user but making it appear (to that user) as though they were still there.

@Shog. Devilish. I love it.

wonders if we should add a "deaf" state, in addition to "mute". Need more wise monkeys...

@Marc - can you add a vibrate option?

do "pulse", "massage", and "frappe" while you're at it

only if you have the right usb attachments...

Or: I'm not entirely sure - was that a serious request, @Nick?

@Marc - I don't think it's possible, would be cool though

@Nick depends on the Browser. With an activex control.

@devinb put IE where it matters (my mobile devices) and I'll hunt you down with a pitchfork!

@devinb any time the answer is, "...with an ActiveX control", the answer is really "no".

@both the answer is actually "Don't Do It!"

FYI I just received a notification for another george for a room in which I was not present.

@George - is that the "let's get philosophical"?

@Marc yes it was.

@MarcGravell Yup.

He was there a while ago. but George Edison was only two messages previous to mine. So I would have assumed that he would be selected.

I think the "autocomplete" should highlight the matches in order of chronology

The logic is pretty much like SO comments. To quote the dwarf, "you are all viable targets"

@marc @balpha New bug. If the last comment is deleted, then "Other rooms I'm in" shows nothing for that room.

Should it not show the previous message?

actually, it even show an edit even if the edited message isn't the last one

depends on how you see it:

should it show the last message or the last activity

wish invited guests could talk without 20 rep -- that would make this easier to share

It depends on what it links to.

@Michael - they can, if they have explicit access

it links to nothing

If it links to the room. Then it should be the most recent (non-deleted) message

What was the motivation to hiding (switch there) rather than it being always visible?

Okay, then yes, the only option I have is to "switch to the room"

which means the view is of the most recent messages.

@MarcGravell do go on

@MarcGravell Is it intentional that I got highlighted on this despite it being a reply to someone else?

If someone edits something that isn't on the page, I'll be wildly confused.

@Michael Yes. replies reply to everyone. apparently.

@MichaelMrozek that is an implicit reply. The system made some assumptions, but that could have been aimed at you.

An explicit reply (with the reply arrow) wouldn't get it wrong.

@MarcGravell how do I give someone explicit access to a room i created?

@balpha If I see a message there, and it is actually an edit that may not even be on the page anymore (it got pushed up) then I'll be confused when I switch to that room. I'll try to find that message and I won't see it at the bottom, where I expect it to be.

@MarcGravell ah, is that under room settings?

got it ok

sorry, was somewhere else (on our internal chat server) - all sorted?

@MarcGravell indeed, thanks

this is pretty slick

maybe you SO developer guys can have a look at

weird, but I caught it in a screen cast at least

maybe, but meta is best for that. This is "Chat feedback"; chat is me and Ben, and we aren't hacking SO at the moment - we're on "chat" lo

I did put it, here is just as a ... "please read and, if you can, do something about it" :)