[Feature Request]: Redesign the message auto-read system.

[BlitDev]

Checklist

• I have used the search function for OPEN ISSUES to see if someone else has already submitted the same feature request.

• I have also used the search function for CLOSED ISSUES to see if the feature was already implemented and is just waiting to be released, or if the feature was rejected.

• I will describe the request with as much detail as possible.

• This request contains only one single feature, not a list of multiple (related) features.

• I have read and understood the Contribution Guidelines.

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

Contact Details

blit@disroot.org (E-mail, XMPP)

@blit:inex.rocks (Matrix),

blitdev (Telegram)

Feature or improvement you want

One of the latest versions of the app added an message auto-read system. BUT its implementation is very annoying. A message is marked as read only if you wait for about 5 seconds in ONE dialogue.
There is no manual read mark or app settings (to disable this wait or change the required wait time), you just MUST to wait and there is nothing you can do about it. Otherwise, you will always have this “unread messages” mark.

And I'm not sure, but it seems like you also have to “read” all messages separately; it's not enough to just wait at the end of the dialogue.

The idea sounds good, but you need to add personalization of the required waiting time and/or the ability to disable this feature altogether and/or if each message is read separately, you need to mark each message as unread separately (so you know where to stop and wait until auto-read happens).

I apologize if I violated the rule about multiple features in one issue; I can create multiple issues later. It's just necessary for understanding the problem.

Why should this be added?

This really annoys me, and I guess I'm not the only one. The behavior before the introduction of auto-read was much better.

Screenshots / Drawings / Technical details

I'm about this "New messages below" and the unread message counter in the “Conversations” section.

[mdecourcy]

The way this is worded comes across as pretty harsh towards the people working on this feature. Phrases like “very annoying”, “you just MUST”, and “there is nothing you can do about it” read more like an attack than constructive feedback. We’re happy to hear about problems and improve things, but we do expect bug reports and feature requests to stay respectful.

To the substance of the issue, the main points I’m taking away are:

• The fixed auto‑read delay is frustrating for your workflow.
• There’s no manual “mark as read”.
• It’s unclear whether messages can be marked read in bulk vs individually.

Things that you are missing:

• What version of the app you're on

Since you’re a developer as well, you’re very welcome to open a PR to adjust this behavior (for example, adding a setting for the delay and/or a manual “mark as read” option). I hope you realize that the way that you worded this just made it extremely low priority.

[1nv]

Please keep the messaging part consistent with other apps, instantly updating the unread counter (as it used to work before).
Meshtastic features rather short messages, and having to wait for 5 seconds for the counter to disappear after you read them is indeed annoying. An option in app settings for enabling/disabling this timeout might work too.

[BlitDev]

The way this is worded comes across as pretty harsh towards the people working on this feature. Phrases like “very annoying”, “you just MUST”, and “there is nothing you can do about it” read more like an attack than constructive feedback. We’re happy to hear about problems and improve things, but we do expect bug reports and feature requests to stay respectful.

To the substance of the issue, the main points I’m taking away are:

* The fixed auto‑read delay is frustrating for your workflow.

* There’s no manual “mark as read”.

* It’s unclear whether messages can be marked read in bulk vs individually.

Things that you are missing:

* What version of the app you're on

Since you’re a developer as well, you’re very welcome to open a PR to adjust this behavior (for example, adding a setting for the delay and/or a manual “mark as read” option). I hope you realize that the way that you worded this just made it extremely low priority.

I apologize if I offended anyone, but you should understand that this is my opinion as a user, and I cannot explain it any other way. As I wrote above, the idea isn't bad. But the implementation has given me some unpleasant feelings.

And I don't quite understand why I made this issue low-priority by describing its importance.

My version of the app is v2.7.7

[jamesarich]

Let me try to explain, again.

Your tone is rude and demanding.

This project is built by volunteers.

Being rude and demanding to volunteers is not going to make your request a priority.

[prokrypt]

Let me try to explain, again.

Your tone is rude and demanding.

This project is built by volunteers.

Being rude and demanding to volunteers is not going to make your request a priority.

Although I agree that the tone of the initial post was ahem not quite neutral, I have the opinion that it shouldn't be made into such a big deal. I’ve worked with people whose first language wasn’t English, and sometimes the way they describe things can come across as rude or hostile. I myself might have been guilty of doing the same, as I had built up a tolerance over time so it's more difficult for me to tell if I'm being rude...

In short, I think we should be a bit more tolerant and meet perceived rudeness with patience rather than hostility, but still be clear and constructive when something needs correcting.

[jamesarich]

Let me try to explain, again.
Your tone is rude and demanding.
This project is built by volunteers.
Being rude and demanding to volunteers is not going to make your request a priority.

Although I agree that the tone of the initial post was ahem not quite neutral, I have the opinion that it shouldn't be made into such a big deal. I’ve worked with people whose first language wasn’t English, and sometimes the way they describe things can come across as rude or hostile. I myself might have been guilty of doing the same, as I had built up a tolerance over time so it's more difficult for me to tell if I'm being rude...

In short, I think we should be a bit more tolerant and meet perceived rudeness with patience rather than hostility, but still be clear and constructive when something needs correcting.

https://meshtastic.org/docs/legal/conduct/