Re: [Usability] Recognizing GNOME-compliant apps

[Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>]

Hey Allan!

Allan Caeg wrote:
> Sounds good, Gabriel. I think that's the entire list of "standards"
> that we should look at.
> 
> 
> The topic of GNOME standards for the idea of "GNOME Apps" for GNOME
> 3.0 may have already been discussed in detail somewhere else. If it
> has been, please point it out. 

You probably want to check out the existing module inclusion guidelines
[1], as well as the moduleset reorganisation threads on ddl [2, 3]. It
would be good to have a discussion around UI validation once the new
moduleset arrangements are made final, actually...

> In addition to clarifying the criteria for platform compliance, my
> intention for starting this thread is to give those apps and the
> standards some publicity. It may be via a section on gnome.org, "GNOME
> Compliant" badges on an app similar to the Ubuntu Software Center
> (could be a new GNOME app), blog posts, or whatever.
> 
> 
> Ideas? 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Gabriel Burt
> <gabriel burt gmail com> wrote:
>         Additional things beyond GNOME HIG compliance to test/report:
>         
>         - a11y support
>         - i18n support
>         - infrastructure (mailing list, issue tracker, website)
>         - license / copyright-assignment requirement
>         - release schedule and adherence
>         
>         This is basically the criteria that I assume are used to judge
>         apps
>         for acceptance into the new Applications release-team
>         category.
>         
>         Gabriel
>         
>         
>         On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Allan Caeg
>         <allancaeg ubuntu com> wrote:
>         > Hello,
>         > Got this idea about starting an initiative to recognize apps
>         that comply
>         > with GNOME standards, which may or may not be limited to the
>         HIG. I'm not
>         > sure what else to consider.
>         > The motivation behind is to pay homage to those deserving
>         projects, promote
>         > the use of those apps vs. noncompliant alternatives, promote
>         the use of
>         > GNOME standards so more apps will comply, and help the
>         development of the
>         > HIG (and maybe other standards) gain traction.
>         > Thoughts?

Just because an application is HIG compliant does not mean it is well
designed. This is one issue the new version of the HIG will aim to
correct: we want it to be less of a 'standard' and more of a 'resource'.
There will still be some things that we want to keep consistent, of
course, but there are also many areas where we want to move away from a
one size fits all approach. This has some interesting consequences for
how we do validation: 'quality review' might be a more appropriate than
'compliance'.

Allan

[1] http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing
[2]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-June/msg00001.html
[3]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2010-October/msg00001.html

-- 
Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/
IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org