GNOME UISG (Was Err..To Desktop...)

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Bowie Poag wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Frederick I Gleef wrote:
> > The primary thing I am confused about is, when I stopped reading the list,
> > we were discussing (heatedly, true) how to address important style-guide
> > issues that were not addressed in the style guide.  Now, when I start up
> > again, Mr. Poag is claiming to be writing "The GNOME Style Guide", and
> > everyone is clammoring to look at a draft.  There is no mention of the
> > fact that there is already a GNOME style guide (,
> > being maintained, as far as I know, by Christopher Blizzard.
> It was agreed upon, about a month ago, that the current Style Guide youre
> referring to (v1.0) isn't going to cut it. I was asked by Federico
> (Quartic) to head up the project to construct a second, more comprehensive
> revision of the Style Guide (v2.0).
> Thats why you're seeing my name alot on the mailing list.

Sounds reasonable.  In fact right after I sent this in, I read Federico's
recent post regarding that discussion, and its implementation, as well as
his apology to Maciej.

> > I have not seen Mr. Blizzard post recently.  Has he given up the job of
> > maintainting the style guide?  If not, why do we care what Mr. Poag is not
> > telling us, the opinions he voices are the only ones that matter. 
> (Flare-up douced...Pour, stir, and pour again, just like Smokey says.)
> We had someone come in out of the blue, having not read anything prior to
> that days events, and began lobbing accusations that pretty clearly
> indicated he didnt really didnt know what was going on; In doing so, 
> confusing everyone else about what was going on, and de-railing everything
> in the process.. The whole thing had to stop while he was brought up to
> speed with the rest of us. 
> Ferocious, roaring flame..

I will not reopen this issue, but I have seen you make some very
unpofessional comments to people trying to discuss the process of
generating the style guide, to the point where some respected GNOME
contributors have removed themselves from the list.  Calm, thoughtful,
polite posts are important for anoyone on the list, but it
becomes particularly important for a person who is maintaining a publicly
visible portion of GNOME (such as the Style Guide).  This must be true
regardless of any provocation, real or imagined.

Basically, if you wish support of your style guide, the respect of the
GNOME community is far more important than the OK of Federico or Miguel.
This respect is based on not only tangible contributions to GNOME, but on
how you interact with others, please keep this in mind when you post.

> > The next question is why are we writing a new style guide.  Granted, the
> > existing style guide is incomplete, and there are some points in it that
> > people might not like, but it has many useful points in it.  I would argue
> > that incremental updates are the way to go, rather than a complete
> > rewrite.  If enough people want a rewrite, than that could work, but the
> > text of the rewrite needs to be on the table (i.e. this mailing list) to
> > discuss.
> As I've just said, the folks heading up the show at GNOME have decided a
> newer, more comprehensive style guide is in order.
> And yes, incremental updates are the way to go--Not anarchy disguised as
> "creative process".

Good, now in the spirit of incremental updates, I have some comments to
make.  I have located your outline of the "GNOME User Interface Style
Guide" <>, and while there is only
structure there, rather than content, I will comment on what I see.  Yes,
I know that you make no claim to completeness, but discussion has to start
somewhere, and I see a fairly good outline, which makes as good a place as
any to start.

First, and yes I know it is a nitpick, I think it is an important one to
get right early.  "GNOME" is an acronym, therefore it should be in all
capital letters.  On the site it is written as "Gnome" everywhere but the

Second, "Button Structure", I cannot see why this is a broad enough
issue to warrant its own section, unless you mean "Toolbar Structure",
which I do not see on the list.

Next, "Construction Guidelines", if it contains what I thimk it will,
would make an ideal first section, after the introduction of course.

Next, "Menu Structure" and "Submenu Structure" should be similar enough
topics to combine in one section.  This would also make it easier to look
up things in the guide, not having to remember which similar section a
point was made in.

Next "Gnome Compliancy FAQ", FAQ's are traditionally separate from
documentation or guides, not contained within.  This makes them easier to
distribute and point things out in.  Also, a minor nitpick, while
"Compliancy" is a legitimate word, it is awkward and uncommon.  IMHO, the
shorter (syllable-wise) and more common word "Compliance" is preferable.

Missing headings in the first part, "Toolbar Structure", "Applet
Structure", "Keyboard Interface", "Documentation".

Second section (by colour) is "General UI Guidelines", how exactly is
this different from "Construction Guidelines"?

The third section (by colour) looks like good appendices.  I'm unsure why
there are two separate sections for "Gnome Window Metrics".  If one of
them is for the Motif Window Metrics, it should say so.  Better yet, both
the MWM and GNOME metrics could go under separate subsections of one

The final section, "Related Information" and "Current Examples" would also
make good appendices.  "Summary of Concepts" would make a good final
section of the text (i.e. before appendices).

Now, before the list starts debating what should go in specific
sections, I think some discussion of the overall structure is warranted,
as well as discussion of what types of things should be included in


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