Re: irc summary

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 3:02 AM
Subject: irc summary


>for those who weren't there and don't have the time to read the log - which
>is something I'm doing right now, have about half of it finished at this
>moment.
>
>you can find the questionaire on bowie's page. the answers of the irc
>participants are non-surprising up to now, exactly what I guess everyone
>here would have expected.


Well I was surprised by some of the stuff.  Never would have thought the
coder division would have been so distraught at the concept of standard
interfaces.  I thought pavlov was going to mutiny in there :-)

>other than that, it's a bit of a mess. :)


Agreed.  My first time with a +m...just think, the unedited log has me
pasting the wrong questions :-)

>gleef's comments are the only high-quality ones so far, but I still have
>slightly over half of the log in front of me.
>
>[...later...]
>
>some comments from lonelyT are interesting. especially the point where he
>sums up what has been said about 3/4 through the log:
>
><lonelyT> look, what i'm seeing here is a generic "let's set a standard but
be
>flexible about it" why don't we dispense with the rest of these questions,
>since they all amount to the same thing.


LonelyT hated the meeting more than you can imagine.  Anyway, this kind of
evidence and research is needed as argumentation to get the coders to agree
with us.  Remember, the ones there weren't too keen on the concept of the
user being able to modify their hard wrought interface.

Anyway, the meeting log will bring more interest to GNOME than the meeting
itself did.

>one thing mentioned was that the "whys" and the whole philosophy should be
>discussed in detail in the style guide. I think this is a very valid point.


Yes.  Not explaining why = coder thinks he knows why not and gets no
rebuttal.

>
>that's my impression. did we really raise hell about this? or is the log on
>dan's homepage incomplete, because among other things I didn't find the
>reference to "my" rebel project he said was being made. so if I just have
>an imcomplete log, please tell me.


It's in there near the beginning, though the wrong URL was posted(corrected
later on).  All the resources for the guide are available @
http://www.primenet.com/~bjp/resources.html , any books YOU might use or
suggest should be added as well.  Your RSG is on there, and in my eyes
should probably be renamed PSG with the idea that we'll eventually merge our
projects.

I think the next thing to do is to take all the ideas that have been tossed
through the group and work 'em into some form of style sheet...

The meeting was definitely worthwhile.  Off the top of my head, key points:

1)  Sample code should be part of the sample guide, or at least some "coders
build" of said guide.  I was already going to do mockups of *everything*
(I'm actually damn good at them), but now I realize our *final* guide, i.e.
for people outside of gnome-dev, is going to need to have their code built
in.

2)  I personally realized that the keybox should have three levels of
control...control by app, control by app *SUITE* [new], and control
globally.  I think that's a nice clarification, no?

3)  A new use for Wanda.

4)  Remove any Linux-centricity from the documentation.  We're not just for
Linux.:-)

Lets not forget, this was a conference that brought a new batch of people up
to speed on the happenings of GNOME.  In two weeks, the UISG will have quite
a bit more to show, and much more for the public to comment upon.

There's more of note, by the way, I'm just INCREDIBLY tired.

>
>anyway. I'll dig through dan's stuff now that it's online and see if I can
>harvest anything for the RSG. talk to you guys later.


My stuff...lesse, runbox, keybox/keythemes, screenplays, macro recording on
the library level(I've come to agree with the Xlab guy here), collaborative
applications, the minbar, and explaining the motivation behind all actions
as well as rebutting counterarguments...there, harvest all of 'em and
anything else I forgot :-)

Can we agree to dump C1 through C5?  It's just *too* confusing, man...