Re: gep-2, Desktop Theme Sets

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 03:42, Seth Nickell wrote:
...
> it
> would be improper to place a usability requirement that "fonts are not
> included in the desktop theme dialog". Similarly, it would be improper
> to place an accesibility requirement that "fonts are changed by the
> desktop theme dialog". Instead they would be better written as, e.g.,
> "settings that most users will want to change from the theme defaults
> should not be included in the theme" and "selecting an accesibility
> theme should change the fonts too". 

Right, I like this wording regarding the accessibility requirement.  

However your statement of the proposed usability requirement could
easily be misinterpeted to prohibit inclusion of fonts and backgrounds,
if you assume that those are things which "most users" would not want to
change.  It also has the problem of relying on knowledge of "most users"
which I respectfully submit that neither of us can prove.   Personally I
think that if "most users" don't want to be *able* to select Theme Sets
which include suggested font settings, they won't want the "Theme Set"
dialog.  Which would be fine... it would do them no harm in that case ;)

By the way, my original wording wasn't intended to say that "all theme
sets include font settings", in fact I elsewhere made that explicit, the
wording was intended to mean "theme sets *may* include font settings",
which is a specific proposal which would satisfy the a11y requirement
without forcing all themes to include fonts.

regards,

Bill

> Otherwise our requirements are going
> to quickly devolve into tools for "locking in" a particular interface.

Agreed, though I'd like for us to converge as quickly as reasonably
possible.

> -Seth

>