Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Modal Interface Restrictions, Revision 1

[Michael Poole <poole graviton res cmu edu>]

Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com> writes:

> We're near consensus on this issue, but not close enough.. Some of the
> wording has changed, so.. lets have a look.
> 
> 
>  o The UISG proposes that the SUGGESTION that "GNOME Compliant"
>    applications be as non-modal as possible be made, rather
>    than *ENFORCED* by Compliancy Levels.

    I have trouble parsing that sentence.  Perhaps something like
this would be easier to read? (assuming that it is what was intentded):

  o "GNOME Compliant" applications SHOULD NOT have distinct "operating
    modes" (such as "user mode" or "edit mode").  However, this is not
    a requirement for any Compliancy Level.
(with possible emphasis on "not" in "not a requirement", and apologies
to Bowie if I've mangled the meaning of the proposal)

    This phrasing is based on the style of IETF RFCs, which (in my
opinion) have a good framework for specifying what is required,
suggested, optional, recommended against, and explicitly forbidden
(the words "MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY", "SHOULD NOT", and either "MUST NOT"
or "MAY NOT", respectively, are used to mean those five things and
are not used for anything else; capitalization is often used to make sure
there is no confusion).

    This may require a lot of editing of the UISG to implement, and may
not be a good idea (I don't know how the UISG is phrased currently).

>    (By "modal" , we're referring to apps which have like a "user
>    mode", or an "edit mode", etc.. This method of application
>    design has been generally disliked by users AND serious
>    app developers for some time, now.)
> 
> Agree or disagree?

    For the actual proposal, I agree.

-- Michael