Re: Rules for design in Gnome
- From: Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>
- To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Rules for design in Gnome
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:35:01 -0400
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 11:08 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> > * Assume that no one but them does design that is good for Gnome.
> if you're designing for Gnome, then *by definition* you are on the
> Gnome design team.
I designed the dynamic help menus. I don't think anybody thinks
of me as being on the design team. If they did, they'd probably
consult with me about things like removing menubars.
I first discussed dynamic help menus in public at my GUADEC talk
in 2010. I sent my initial patches for glib and gtk+ in April 2011,
months before there was a public implementation allowing us to add
stuff to the app menu. I blogged about it. I don't know how to make
it any less of a secret.
> if your designs are in conflict with what other people doing design
> are trying to achieve, then you should talk to them, and revise them
> and/or achieve a rough consensus on what is the direction to take.
If you remove menubars, you're drastically changing the way users
access and interact with help. If you're changing the way help
works, I firmly believe the onus is on you to talk to the people
who work on the help. We're very easy to contact. We have both an
IRC channel and a mailing list.
> by the way, since we're dropping rules by fiat, and given that at
> least I'm empowered by the fact of having been elected on the
> Foundation's board, I think people on this list are welcome to assume
> that people mean well, and are NOT welcome to assume conspiracies or
> assume that people do stuff just because.
Nothing in Federico's email suggested that to me. He didn't name
any names, nor any things anybody had done, nor any suspected
reasons for why they had done those things. He just stated what
he thinks ought to be the rules going forward.
Granted, it was worded as a decree instead of a proposal. That
was probably not the best way to write it. But the email was
about as non-accusational as you can get while still conveying
what you believe should be the rules.
] [Thread Prev