Re: A Proposal For The Addition Of Color-Reactiveness To The GNOME Desktop

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Bowie Poag wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 1998, John R Sheets wrote:
>
> > What I get from this whole discussion about color reactiveness
> > and where to put it and how far to implement it/control it is
> > that GNOME could benefit from a simple, extensible status
> > messaging protocol.  If a WM wants to implement an app's status
> > as a lamp or beacon, fine.  If it wants to use icons, sounds,
> > animations, or tap into some central default (theme-based?) GNOME
> > status-drawing API's, then fine too.  The important thing is the
> > status messaging.
>
> Agreed. However, conceeding this, we shoudln't throw the baby out with the
> bathwater. The best way to implement an "extensible status messaging
> protocol" is via the use of lamps, beacons, and color-reactive elements.
> Only in special cases (such as in color-blindedness) should other
> methodologies be explored. There needs to be a standard; not only for how
> the idea is to be implemented, but also a standard for visual continuity,
> IMHO.

Well, I don't think we're throwing *anything* out with the bath water.  I
think if we restrict alternate methodologies to special cases only (e.g.
color-blindness), THAT would be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
If we stop at color-reactiveness, who knows what other great concepts we might
be missing because we stopped looking after the first idea.

And while were doing cliche's, I'd like to add that we should stay away from
"sacred cows" and "one-horse towns".  (c:

John