Re: levels of compliance

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> sungod wrote:
> 
> > can someone give me an example of how a _rule_ for human interface would
> > meet, say, level 3 compliance or level 4 compliance but not level 1 or
> > 2?

The basic point surrounding compliancy levels was basically to separate
the wheat from the chaff. Apps which exhibit certain qualities which make
them superior to others in their genre' are given a greater level of
prestige, while still encouraged to improve further.

Lets say we have an application, and Gnome's desktop configuration allows
the user to specify in what style/size they wish ALL of their buttons to
appear in..a certain height, a certain width.. An application with a lower
level of compliance would be one that ignored these user-described specs,
and simply used buttons of a width supplied by the coder. Lets then say
that the coder says "Ah, I suck!" , changed his code so that his buttons
appear in the size the user described, and added/improved some other stuff
in his code. His program then goes up one level of prestige/esteem on the
ladder. 

Its largely pointless to make "rules" within a style guide, along the
lines of "Dialogue boxes must have at least 2, and mo more than 4 buttons"
, because there are going to be exceptions...always. The trick to writing
a solid style guide is *understanding* that this will always be the case,
and applying matters of professional taste and prudence instead. While you
cant mandate taste (and you'de be stupid to try..) , you can still lead
developers down the path to righteousness in this way. A document's
strength comes largely from its consistancy. Do it right, and people will
hail it as the word of god.

Take skyscrapers. Engineers and architects construct them *on purpose* so
that they wiggle a little bit..On a windy day in Chicago, the Sears Tower
can sway as much as a foot or so..Its designed to. If it didnt, it would
suffer from structural fatigue.

A good guide should be built in the same way. Rock solid and comprehensive
in its design, but with also an added, intentional element of flexibility.

Bowie