You misunderstand: I do not propose a "good looks" badge. I am proposing a "standards compliance" badge.
As for your (1), I would not argue against a soft warning. As for (2) Then let us not speak of it here ;) On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:46 PM, topdownjimmy <topdownji...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that there's a small problem with users installing gobs of KDE > dependencies that they might not want (without even knowing that they > don't want them). But "good looks" is so subjective as to make any > attempt to define it in any formal way very problematic. > > 1) Maybe it would be wise to give some kind of soft warning against > installing KDE apps if the KDE dependencies are not already met, e.g.: > "This application requires a large number of additional packages, and > may not integrate seamlessly with your desktop. There is no harm in > installing it, but you may want to browse alternatives first. > Continue?" > > 2) Maybe this would be overkill (and I suspect this subject has been > discussed at length before), but I wonder if the software center could > benefit from ratings for a handful of different aspects of an > application, e.g.: "Stability," "Functionality," "Ease-of-use," > "Appearance." > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Meek <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 > > 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
