Docs, docs, who's got the docs?

[Samuel Solon <ssolon usa net>]

After reading this list for the last couple of weeks I thought I was
following what was going on -- but now I'm not so sure.

I thought the point of coming up with the style guide, and codifying a
series of compliance levels was to provide a user with some sort of
assurance about a particular application. An application that met GCxxx
level of compliance would meet a certain level of user expectations.

AFAIK this is all free software. The author of a piece of piece of software
is free to do *whatever they want*. They can conform to the GNOME style
guide or not. Nobody can force anybody to do anything.

If it is determined that providing documentation is as important as making
sure that the application meets the menu guidelines, or dialog box
guidelines, or whatever guidelines, than that should be part of the
certification level.

If an author wants to release an application without docs, they can, they
just won't meet that level of compliance.

Personally, I feel that EVERY GNOME application should come with at least a
rudimentary set of documentation. The lowest level of compliance should
require some sort of descriptive document.

People either agree that it is necessary that GNOME applications be
documented, and it's made part of the requirements, or they feel that
documentation is unnecessary and it is left out of the requirements.

It all comes down to what we want GNOME to be.

It seems odd to fight tooth and nail about icon versus text, "File" menu
versus something else, and then just say, "documentation would be nice but
most of our users will be experts/mind readers/adventurous people who don't
mind guessing/experimenting/wasting bandwidth on usenet to figure out how
the applications work".

GNOME should be about creating a positive user experience -- or why bother.

Sam Solon
ssolon@usa.net