Re: To answer your question about the upcoming Style-Guide..

In response to Tom Vogt's comments:

> pardon me, but are you really working on the next major version of the style
> guide already? we have barely discussed one point yet, and there's a lot
> still to come.

Well, i'm of the opinion that if we sat here and muddled over every single
point, we'd be here for an eternity, and we would have spent that eternity
bickering over the reasoning behind specific details instead of paying
attention to larger issues. I'm more inclined to introduce a series of
semi-gelled rough drafts of V2, which THEN can be picked at, dissected,
and discussed, chapter by chapter, section by section. We're all over the
map here, the way its being handled right now.

> >    Standards which make sense, and can survive the test of time, are
> > more valuable than you can believe. Ever wonder why the distance between
> > the rails of a railroad track are all the same, no matter where you are?
> > Its been like that for over 150 years. Why? Because someone back in the
> > 1840's sat down, thought about it, and did the right thing.
> by the way: railroad tracks in russia have a DIFFERENT width. it was part of
> what successfully closed of russia to the german blitzkrieg in wk2.

A block of TNT on the tracks will have the same effect. :) I get your
point, tho. >My< point, however, was that important decisions cannot be
made solely on the needs mandated in the "now".. They also need to be made
on the basis of the needs mandated by the future.

> >    Yes, the form and function of the Style Guide will take largely after
> > pre-existing designs. Im strongly against the idea of including specific
> > features & functionality into a design for the simple sake that "People
> > are just used to it that way"... People are used to Win95, which is as
> > close to a living abortion of a desktop as one could imagine; An 
> > inconsistant, loosely-collected blob of borrowed ideas.. I'n NOT going to
> > lay down the plans to build another Win95. Just because people are used to
> > doing something in a paticular way, even when that "way" is terrible, does
> > NOT mean that I will advocate its inclusion into V2 of the UI SG. 
> very good.
> >    This is the core of what separates our approach from that of KDE.
> > Function, and visual consistancy must come FIRST--Not the desire to
> > placate and comfort the user with a design which simply doesnt make sense.
> and this is the reason I put time into gnome, but have deleted kde after
> checking it out. :)

Indeed, a wise decision. :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]