Re: Metaproposal: Default to standard

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Dan Effugas Kaminsky wrote:
> 
> For example, if the GNOME Style Guide was to neglect to use the Macintosh
> systems for text selection(single click = move cursor, double click = select
> word, triple click = select sentence, etc.), and a GNOME programmer needed
> to know what to implement, he or she should implement what the users
> expects:  Macintosh style text selection.

I disagree.  You're simplifying this too much.  What the user
expects?  Which user?  What do former OS/2 users do when one of
your slipped-through-the-cracks features reacts as a Mac would,
but in a way completely contradictory to the way it works in
OS/2?

If we were to do this, we would have to explicitly list
references to _all possible_ default standards, in prioritized
order.  Otherwise, you'll end up with a mish mash of features
from Macintosh, NextStep, Windows, OS/2, Amiga, and whatever else
so-and-so developer is familiar with.  It would cause no more
consistency than if we had said nothing about it at all, and
would contrarily produce an extra layer of unneeded confusion.

It's a good thought, but not really practical.  If it's not
stated (or addressed, or hinted at) in the Style Guide, we don't
care how it's implemented.  If it's something common enough to be
a standard in some OS, it should already be in the Guide.  If
it's not that common, then it outside the scope of the Guide.  Do
you have any more concrete examples?  It's kind of hard to
discuss with the example you gave.

[I'm ignoring the fact that your example was widget-related, not
GNOME-related....it was just an example, after all.]

> That being said, *every single thing* in the Macintosh HCI guidelines should
> either be accepted or rejected, and the results of that should be placed in
> the GUIG.  That's the difference between producing a complete document, and
> just a helper thing.

Only to the extent that we don't leave out anything that would
make GNOME a better, more consistent desktop.  If that's what you
mean, then I agree.  I don't think we need to _explicitly_ and
officially reject things from the Mac HCI, unless it's a general
warning to developers to avoid a GUI feature that they might
normally be tempted to implement.  (Sorry, no examples off the
top of my head.)

You don't mean that the GUIG should have a list of all items from
the Mac HCI, each one marked with Accept/Don't Accept...do you?

> Yes, this means we should have "what's new in GNOME" descriptors lying
> around.

What do you mean?  Where?

John