[HIG] Should vs. Must (was Re: [HIG] Naming)

[Andrea Mankoski <andi eng sun com>]

Kathy makes a good point about the ease with which mere recommendations
can be dismissed by time-pressed developers. I have felt for some time
that we need to take a stronger stance on some of the points, making
them design requirements. The truth is, it is unlikely that some hand of
the Gods is going to strike down anyone who "disobeys" a requirement, so
we aren't forcing conformance even if we do mark some guidelines as
required. We would just be improving the chances that the most important
guidelines would be followed.

 ..... . . .. . ... . .. .  .   . .  .  .    .    .     .       .
 Andrea Mankoski                           HCI Designer, Sun
Microsystems
 andi eng sun com                           Menlo Park, California  USA
 650-786-6514                                      Building 17, Room
1130

Kathy Fernandes wrote:

<snip>

> While I agree that design decisions should be based on user testing,
> are there design conventions such as action names, order of menu
> contents, shortcuts that we want to "strongly encourage" (require?)
> developers to use (to ensure consistency across applications within a
> system)?  Are there some guidelines that need to be stated as "shall"
> rather than "should" so that this happens?
>
> Adam indicated that the document is "more of a guideline/policy doc
> than a how-to manual."  Will there be a policy statement on what it
> means for an application to be "GNOME-compliant" with regard to its
> user interface?  Is a "compliant" application one that "must" follow
> the guidelines?  Or can a "compliant" application diverge from the
> guidelines if the divergence is justified by usability testing?
>
> As someone who provides UI direction to a diverse group of
> application developers, I find it difficult to make policy
> pronouncements related to "doing the right thing" with regard to
> usability when the guidelines contain "should's" rather than
> "shall's."  When time and funds are limited, developers tend to
> "defer" addressing usability considerations if they are not stated as
> application requirements.  I'm not advocating that the content of the
> HIG change, only that these questions be discussed at some point (if
> they haven't been already).