Re: fundamentals of the gnome user interface

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> 
> 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