Re: gnome app pages (was confusingly Gnome Software Map)

[Gezim Hoxha <gezimetc shaw ca>]

On Mon, 2006-07-08 at 15:54 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:

> Gezim and Jeff: controlled duplication of information is not a bad
> thing. One reason is aggregation, for example the blog planets. There is
> added value in pulling info together from a number of places. Another is
> repetition while drilling down into a complex topic. Yet another is
> different views on a complex topic.
>
> We just have to make sure we can control the duplication. We can use
> feeds, CMS features etc. For example, if we could use application
> introductions in both the app pages, manuals, (which are translated
> anyway btw), about boxes, etc, we could save some effort and come a long
> way.

Now I understand and I agree that if the duplication is done in a
(semi-)automatic manner then let's go for it. We could probably offer
the project leaders to write an intro about their project that they can
use in their official site and ask for a feed from it. I think this
would work nicely.

<snip>
> As I mentioned in a previous email, I see wgo/apps as a middle ground
> between a full-blown software map (gnomefiles) and the full-blown
> homepages and project pages. Maybe I should have drawn something too :)

As Jeff mentioned, I think "apps" is not a general enough term to cover
everything we have to offer. So, I vote for "product".

> In this respect I see projects a bit orthogonal, since projects include
> applications (one or more), or perhaps none at all. That's why I'm a bit
> confused why Jeff is merging the two. We need more discussion here.

The term "project" sounds to me as something unfinished, something in
beta maybe. If we look at Microsoft, they called one of the projects
"Longhorn" however, the product is called Microsoft Windows Vista.

> If the list's sole purpose is to display what app is "officially"
> considered part of gnome, it's like saying here is my nipple use it for
> target practice. IMHO there is no single official list of apps, at least
> not for Average Joe. What the foundation or the release team nods on is
> irrelevant for him. What his distro supports, or better yet, what his
> admins support (large deployments are after all our largest user group)
> is his official list of software. So putting up a list like this has
> IMHO little value for a large number of users, and will just get some
> people offended (like Claus said)...

Here is where I disagree. I think the GNOME brand has a huge potential.
It's a trademark. We should leverage it. Let's look at a similar thing,
the GTK. When I see that a _product_ is called "g<some weird word>" I'm
thinking it's going to run in my gnome (and thus gtk) desktop. So these
products calling themselves g<something> are benefiting from the gtk
(and maybe even the gnome) brand. I'm pretty much guaranteed that it'll
have an non-bloated "Open" dialogue box and so on. If we do the same
thing with GNOME, if we call Evolution "GNOME Evolution" then we are
making a statement, maybe that says: this product is stable, it follows
the GHIG (Gnome Human Interface Guidelines), etc. We can decide what
this statement means later on. Now imagine this (although hard--just
try), since GNOME Evolution was ported to Windows recently, a Windows
user downloads it, likes it, and uses it. When time comes (inevitable,
really :-)) to switch to Linux, he/she'll finally meet the parent of all
GNOMEs, the GNOME Desktop! He/she'll feel at home! 

* tear drop *

Dare to dream.

<snip>

> Quim, and Gazim was it? "Not scrolling" is soo overrated. Screen sizes
> (and windows sizes!) are not uniform, so there is no way of avoiding
> scrolling. (To rant a bit, I hate designs which impose too much
> structure on a web page. It might look cool on the designer's mac, but
> as soon as you change font size, or resize the window so you don't have
> to strain your eyes on miles long lines the whole layout blows up in
> your face. I hope the new wgo will not do this...)

It's Gezim with an E, but it's pronounced like you spelled it. When I
mentioned scrolling I was talking strictly about the gateway, namely
wgo/index.php and I still maintain my position that we shouldn't have to
scroll on the gateway page. Having said that, if this can't be achieved
naturally without changing font and all else and thus "freezing" the
page, then we should not worry about it.

<snip>

-Gezim