Re: fundamentals of the gnome user interface

[Jan Gentsch <gentsch ifm uni-hamburg de>]

I am not sure whether a system of compliancy levels is a good idea. It seems
to me that it would be better to just state the minimum standard of features
a programm should have in order to consider itself to be gnome compliant. On
top of that additional advise could be given, and of course gnome compliant
programms should strive to follow this. I see no good reason to start ranking
a programm to be more compliant or less. What would that be usefull for?
Either you do comply to a standard or you don't. Microsoft is very good at
just being a bit compliant with standards, which renders things useless,
because in fact they do not comply.


Jan


Bowie Poag wrote:

> >
> > also, be aware (bowie, this is for you, because it applies directly what
> > you said about "levels" and programmable icons and such) that
> > implementing tier 2 does _not_ necessarily mean sane keyboard shortcuts.
> > for a text editor or irc client it does, but a power user in the gimp
> > should not have to take his hand off the mouse while stretching a
> > rubberband box to reach the "p" key while pressing "control" in order to
> > apply a transformation of some sort. see what this means?
>
> Of course. See, here's how I look a the situation, ideally:
>
> The style guide has "compliancy levels". The first and most basic rung of
> the ladder encompasses ONLY what is deemed "bare minimum" to meet the
> definition of "gnome compliant", eg. all the things we'd like to see
> everyone doing, in the most basic, basic sense. You know, the
> foundation... What we deem to be "Gnome Compliant" means an app has X, Y
> and Z. Anything MORE simply earns a hugher ranking.. MORE compliant,
> versus LESS compliant, but *still* "Gnome Compliant".
>
> What those details encompass is up to us.
>
> By describing the macro icons thing (i'll spare you the formal name..hee)
> that we worked on in InSight, I was merely trying to point out in an
> exterior sense that new ideas should be flexible enough to meet the
> definition of "Gnome Compliant", by their very design. We dont wanna nail
> any coders down to a standard from which they may NEED to stray from, in
> order to be original, and unique. Sometimes, the best approach ISNT to
> have easy to read menus, keyboard shortcuts, etc.. The wording has to be
> flexible enough to encompass any "good" application.
>
> Long story.
>
> Bowie
>
> --
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-gui-list-request@gnome.org with
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.