Re: Contribution

[Maxim Udushlivy <maxim udushlivy gmail com>]

Alan Horkan wrote:
> > And about that HIG: guidelines have a tendency slowly but steadily to
> > transform into constraints. It's much better to have principles instead
> > of constraints.
> >     
>
> Guideline and checklists are easier to follow. 
That is the problem: those checklists become constraints that hinder UI 
innovation. As a programmer (artist to some extent) I want to learn 
common sense principles that possibly would allow me to implement 
interface in a more productive way than guidelines authors may think of  
- and not to loose my personality by just following templates.

>  There is not always clear
> cut agreement on the principles either.  If there is something in the HIG
> you disagree with I would strongly encourage you to mail the usability
> list and ask.
Windows programmers manage to create successful applications without 
guidelines. I disagree with HIG existence (more below) - but I suppose 
my opinion is not very important here ;)

>   There may well be room for alternative approachs which keep
> within the spirit and intentions of the guidelines.  If you ask we should
> in most cases be able to explain to you some of the rationale behind a
> guideline or possible compromises which informed a decision at the time
> and could now be reapproached.
>
> The Guidelines are not carved in stone.  The can and will be changed but
> most prefer to take the path of least resistance and make inconsistent
> applications rather than trying to promote changes in the HIG or even the
> toolkit.
>
>   
> > And that principle about Gnome simplicity - it's good, but it should not
> > be achieved at the expense of functionality. Being simple does not mean
> > being less functional.
> >     
>
> It is easier to say one has principles than to clearly express them and
> consistently follow them.  The guidelines provide a useful way to express
> various ideas in a clearer less ambiguous fashion.
>
>   
I think I can clearly express such a principle ;)
Take a look at google.com. Most of the time we use a text field and a 
search button. Two UI controls make a gate into the universe. Simple UI 
+ great functionality (invisible search algorithms and an invisible 
index database)

So here is that principle that I think make Google successful: reduce 
number of UI controls and expand application functionality while 
preserving UI/functionality coherency. I think that consumer electronics 
inherently follow this principle (TV, video recorders, phones, etc.)

> This discussion is getting very hypothetical but if you do have an
> specific examples in the HIG you disagree with and would like to reexamine
> please do bring the subject to the usability mailing list (but please do
> not cross post).
>   
Some thoughts about being a Gnome application...
I remember there was such a thing on Windows as application 
certification. Perhaps it was not very useful on Windows but Gnome may 
adopt this process. User who downloads a Gnome-certified application is 
guaranteed about certain level of stability, functionality, 
dependability, usability, etc. Application developers should contend for 
certification and Gnome project must define some standards and have 
formal review procedures. I think this will improve Gnome much better 
and faster that those passive HIG's ;)