Re: In support of Bowie

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

>first off, yours is a very good example of - how dan would put it - a bad
>implementation, not necessarily a broken concept (compare "start" menu,
dan.
>:) ).


The Start Menu was something that *could* have been done right but wasn't.

Given the degree of difference between the various offices and the various
sources, and the lack of any kind of unifying factor, I don't think it would
have been possible in any circumstance for things to have worked.

If there is a start menu similarity, it's in the fact that in both the start
menu and the case study, there was no underlying framework, no defined set
of expectations for contributions, no nothing for the various parties to
adhere to.  It turns out I was *wrong* about the start menu--applications
don't even always install to their respective company names.  Sometimes they
just go Programs::Application::<whatever>.  Sometimes they do other things.

Sorting by category--like the icewm pic you didn't like--appears to be the
*only* way to really organize apps.  I pose the following questions to you
and the rest of the group:

1)  Can/should the style guide mandate an installation style?  (Application
must generate optional entrance into category/subcategory upon installation)

2)  Assuming we have a runbox(e-mail if you don't remember what this is), is
there *anything at all* better than a category sort for the gnomeprint app
listings?

3)  [unrelated]  Anybody besides the poor programmer who has to implement
the damn fix think that it's good to discount 640x480 users and to lock icon
size at 48x48?  This isn't supposed to sound sarcastic...I'm just making
sure that gnome-gui's position on this issue is pretty clear...