What in addition to being GTK-based would you propose as a requirement for being "standards-compliant"?
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
