Re: Contribution

[Maxim Udushlivy <maxim udushlivy gmail com>]

Calum Benson wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006, at 13:30, Maxim Udushlivy wrote:
> > > .
> > 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.
>
> The HIG provides many of those principles too, and we actually made a 
> point of putting them at the front of the document, rather than the 
> back.  Like many things in the HIG, it could do with a refresh, though.
Well, perhaps this dispute is in fact an "innovation vs tradition" 
philosophical conflict :) If this is true, there must be a place for 
both; and HIG's should exist, but only as recommendations, not as 
constraints. And a note about certification - all obvious HIG guidelines 
(checklists) I think should be moved from HIG to Gnome certification 
standard as "must" items - similar to those in Fedora: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

> > Windows programmers manage to create successful applications without
> > guidelines.
>
> Hardly.. the Windows guidelines are the thickest ones on my bookshelf:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwue/html/welcome.asp 
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/Resources/windowsxp/default.mspx
This is not a reply to my sentence ;) Even if guidelines exist that does 
not mean they are widely used.

> > I disagree with HIG existence (more below) - but I suppose
> > my opinion is not very important here ;)
>
> If you remember the mess GNOME was becoming before the guidelines 
> existed, your opinion may be a little different :)
Arrived two years ago, so cannot compare... but may be it's just a 
developers' professional growth, not tied to HIG's in any way?

> > 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.)
>
> Yet video recorders and phones have historically had some of the worst 
> UIs imaginable... so there must be more to it than that.
You commented an illustration, not the principle itself ;) The principle 
I expressed is in fact a modern GUI cornerstone! (oops...)

> > 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.
>
> It's already being discussed; feel free to add your thoughts to 
> http://live.gnome.org/GnomeCertification.
My main thought about Gnome is very general: too much bureaucracy and 
politics, not enough technology and real activity ;)