Re: Apply, Close... (Re: gnome-stock pixmaps)

[Bruce Dodson <brucedodson rocketmail com>]

---"Guillermo S. Romero / unnamed / Familia Romero"
<famrom@ran.es> wrote:
>
> >> Convention != Right
> >> Law != Justice
> >Interesting choice of words.  Scientifically
> >speaking, a law is an apparent universal truth, a
> >theory that is proven by experiment.  Unless you are
> 
> I was speaking about lawyers' laws and justice. Not
Physics laws.
> (Translation problems I think)
> 

Fair enough.  I was just having fun with words.  My
point is still valid.

> >guideline.  In either case you can improve on the
> >model, but you cannot blatantly depart from it.
> 
> Sometimes break is need.
> This sound like a revolution... breaking with the
past... ;]

Certo.  These breaks are called paradigm shifts and
new application areas.

GNOME itself is not a paradigm shift, although one
may emerge from its NOM.  In the mean time, I believe
the best course of action is to incrementally build
on conventional user interface principles.  Thinking
like, "Users will have to learn the new way, because
the new way is right and the old way is wrong" will
get you nowhere.  Instead of accomplishing the
desired effect (acceptance of GNOME), the effect will
be the opposite (marginalization), because the users
are the ones who say what's right or wrong, and they
are biased by convention.  "Theoretically better"
doesn't matter.  

GNOME is also not a new application area.  However,
nothing prevents you from finding and exploring a new
application area.  Any new tools that this area
requires may be designed as you see fit, and if they
are consistent, they may then filter down to other
application areas.  For example, the GIMP's color
picker becomes GNOME's stock color picker.  And the
web's stylized rollover effects are now in
button-bars everywhere, despite the fact that
conventional wisdom once said that "flat things
aren't clickable".


> 
> >The truth is that the desktop paradigm isn't all
that
> >intuitive for new users.  This isn't a flaw of
> >windows; it's just a limitation of the model.  But
> >we're stuck with it until someone invents something
> >better, and I would argue that it's more important
> >for Gnome-App "A" to behave more or less like
> >Motif-App "B" and KDE-App "C", which are all running
> >on the same desktop, than it is for Gnome to be
> >consistant with the "real world".
> 
> I disagree: the objetive is to get a set of apps
that work all the same way,
> not to get new app that work as old ones. If the
objetive is to copy old
> things: why not just do clones?

The objective is not to copy old things; it is to
build something better, of course.  If GNOME is
adopted, it will be adopted in stages.  As a courtesy
to our users, we should make the transition easier.  

I believe we are up to the task of building something
better within the framework of convention.  This will
ensure that it is not only better, but also used.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com