Its interesting that there are 2 different opinions on this.
I think that how it is managed will be the definitive factor on whether
it drive the community apart or not. If there is an Ubuntu 'team' that
would apply themes, Unity and panel integration etc, then it should be
ok as long as bugs patched in Ubuntu have their fixes sent upstream.
The current dark bar under the panel should be integrated into more
apps, even those not default, in order to make them fit the theme as
well as possible and make the whole desktop appear to flow more
coherently. And its also true that some users wont like it. But then,
the benefits of Linux should keep them at bay - if they don't like it,
they can change it.
On 06/09/11 15:40, cmaglothin wrote:
I don't think it would drive the community apart at all. In fact, this
would most likely promote key apps that fit best within Ubuntu, and by
doing so, would increase the competition for better apps across the
whole of the ecosystem. As someone who is more visual than code
oriented, I can easily say that there are very few apps that look at
all like they fit within Ubuntu, at least with its current theme of
"Light." Most apps seem anything but light, with their bloated
toolbars and adherence to different sets of rules. A standard would
make the whole of Ubuntu more pleasing, not just to regular user, but
to those who use it seriously. I feel that the more serious users
would like it as well if their favorite apps acted in similar ways so
that there is little to no barrier between on app or another. Though
there would be some die hards that would decry it as Linux blasphemy,
the model would in the end help achieve the goal of Ubuntu, an easier
Linux for real people. So no matter what one does to help there will
always be a group of users that will cry foul.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Roland Taylor <rolandi...@gmail.com
<mailto:rolandi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm with James on this one. It would be nice to have a definition
of what an Ubuntu application is, but let's face it - that would
drive a wedge in the wider community even wider than what
currently exists. People would label Canonical as Apple and us
users as fanboys, and essentially seek ways to alienate Ubuntu,
just because it stands out.
Essentially, while it would be great - we would have to word it
very carefully, and be clear that all other applications are welcome.
/When one seeks to stand out - they should first consider the cost
of standing and the price of being out.
/
On 09/05/2011 09:27 PM, James Gifford wrote:
I love that idea.
However, It'd be seen by many as "too Apple-like". Not that that is a bad
thing, but it's something to consider.
Cheers,
James Gifford
http://jamesrgifford.com
On Sep 5, 2011, at 20:36, Jonathan Meek<shrouded.cl...@gmail.com>
<mailto:shrouded.cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
As things currently stand, if you want an application in Ubuntu you go to the
software center and browse the myriad applications available. Of these, MANY are what I
would dub 'legacy' applications (my word, don't focus too much on it). As far as I know,
there is nothing that quite defines an Ubuntu application. This creates the situation,
where, if we get the presumed users, they install Ubuntu and go looking for applications
and they can end up installing the KDE4 stack for it, not knowing that it's not the way
things are supposed to look, furthering the inconsistencies of the Ubuntu desktop
"look." (This is NOT a thread to complain about such, there are plenty others
out there.)
I would propose that, to mitigate this issue, some sort of guideline be
established for the look and feel of *Ubuntu* applications. (Meaning Ubuntu,
not GNOME's HIG) Right now, there is no real set of rules that defines how an
app should look and behave on Ubuntu. We assume that it should be GTK (but
defaults have non-gtk apps); we assume it should have Native widgets (but
defaults use non-native/hacked widgets); we make all kinds of assumptions and
none of facts seem to fit to any real set of rules.*
This is also not something that the community do, because if I could, I
would. We need to work with the design team to be able to develop the
guidelines.
Now, say we have those hypothetical guidelines out. I would propose a new feature in the USC, a
sort of stamp for applications. It would work one of two ways: if the app is added the old, package
approver way, the approver would be able to set the "100% Ubuntu integration"** badge and
it would appear beside the app name in the list view of Software Center. The other way would be
for a checkbox in the developer submit function of Ubuntu.com that says 'this app follows the
Ubuntu guidelines' And would get some sort of provisional badge that would be subject to the USC's
'report this app' type of function. (Perhaps simply a check box saying "Application does not
meet Ubuntu guidelines" that would show for only applications with such a badge.)
In this fashion, you create a psuedo-category of applications in Ubuntu
that are sort of first-party approved. You get a reason for apps to take the
time to look nice because they will be acknowledged as fitting in with what is
arguably the most popular Linux distro. You will, at least in my opinion,
create a system wherein creating an Ubuntu app is beneficial. Users will know
that those applications are more aligned with how things should be and will
naturally move toward them first when seeking new applications (though, not all
will, because features and such may not be the same). But the average user will
hopefully look for the stamp and won't be put off by the quirks of Qt apps or
the XUL xenograft ;) when encountering new apps on their computer.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I would be more than happy to
answer any questions or clarify any statements if need. I hope to be able to
hear back from design on this proposal. Adieu for now!
*This is also not to say that we should ditch, say, Firefox because it doesn't fit in
with proposed "defaults." There are exceptions to the rules.
**That is to say, it looks and behaves the way an Ubuntu app should in Ubuntu. That
isn't to say that it's a full-time Ubuntu app. For example, Empathy would be eligible for
this "stamp", even though it isn't developed for Ubuntu.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list:https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
Post to :ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
<mailto:ayatana@lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe :https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
More help :https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list:https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
Post to :ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
<mailto:ayatana@lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe :https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
More help :https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
<mailto:ayatana@lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
