On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Meek <
shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You misunderstand: I do not propose a "good looks" badge. I am proposing a
> "standards compliance" badge.
> As for your (1), I would not argue against a soft warning.
> As for (2) Then let us not speak of it here ;)
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:46 PM, topdownjimmy <
topdownjimmy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that there's a small problem with users installing gobs of KDE
>> dependencies that they might not want (without even knowing that they
>> don't want them). But "good looks" is so subjective as to make any
>> attempt to define it in any formal way very problematic.
>>
>> 1) Maybe it would be wise to give some kind of soft warning against
>> installing KDE apps if the KDE dependencies are not already met, e.g.:
>> "This application requires a large number of additional packages, and
>> may not integrate seamlessly with your desktop. There is no harm in
>> installing it, but you may want to browse alternatives first.
>> Continue?"
>>
>> 2) Maybe this would be overkill (and I suspect this subject has been
>> discussed at length before), but I wonder if the software center could
>> benefit from ratings for a handful of different aspects of an
>> application, e.g.: "Stability," "Functionality," "Ease-of-use,"
>> "Appearance."
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Meek <
shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > As things currently stand, if you want an application in Ubuntu you go
>> > to
>> > the software center and browse the myriad applications available. Of
>> > these,
>> > MANY are what I would dub 'legacy' applications (my word, don't focus
>> > too
>> > much on it). As far as I know, there is nothing that quite defines an
>> > Ubuntu
>> > application. This creates the situation, where, if we get the presumed
>> > users, they install Ubuntu and go looking for applications and they can
>> > end
>> > up installing the KDE4 stack for it, not knowing that it's not the way
>> > things are supposed to look, furthering the inconsistencies of the
>> > Ubuntu
>> > desktop "look." (This is NOT a thread to complain about such, there are
>> > plenty others out there.)
>> > I would propose that, to mitigate this issue, some sort of guideline be
>> > established for the look and feel of *Ubuntu* applications. (Meaning
>> > Ubuntu,
>> > not GNOME's HIG) Right now, there is no real set of rules that defines
>> > how
>> > an app should look and behave on Ubuntu. We assume that it should be GTK
>> > (but defaults have non-gtk apps); we assume it should have Native
>> > widgets
>> > (but defaults use non-native/hacked widgets); we make all kinds of
>> > assumptions and none of facts seem to fit to any real set of rules.*
>> > This is also not something that the community do, because if I could, I
>> > would. We need to work with the design team to be able to develop the
>> > guidelines.
>> > Now, say we have those hypothetical guidelines out. I would propose a
>> > new
>> > feature in the USC, a sort of stamp for applications. It would work one
>> > of
>> > two ways: if the app is added the old, package approver way, the
>> > approver
>> > would be able to set the "100% Ubuntu integration"** badge and it would
>> > appear beside the app name in the list view of Software Center. The
>> > other
>> > way would be for a checkbox in the developer submit function of
>> > Ubuntu.com
>> > that says 'this app follows the Ubuntu guidelines' And would get some
>> > sort
>> > of provisional badge that would be subject to the USC's 'report this
>> > app'
>> > type of function. (Perhaps simply a check box saying "Application does
>> > not
>> > meet Ubuntu guidelines" that would show for only applications with such
>> > a
>> > badge.)
>> > In this fashion, you create a psuedo-category of applications in Ubuntu
>> > that
>> > are sort of first-party approved. You get a reason for apps to take the
>> > time
>> > to look nice because they will be acknowledged as fitting in with what
>> > is
>> > arguably the most popular Linux distro. You will, at least in my
>> > opinion,
>> > create a system wherein creating an Ubuntu app is beneficial. Users will
>> > know that those applications are more aligned with how things should be
>> > and
>> > will naturally move toward them first when seeking new applications
>> > (though,
>> > not all will, because features and such may not be the same). But the
>> > average user will hopefully look for the stamp and won't be put off by
>> > the
>> > quirks of Qt apps or the XUL xenograft ;) when encountering new apps on
>> > their computer.
>> > Thank you for taking the time to read this. I would be more than happy
>> > to
>> > answer any questions or clarify any statements if need. I hope to be
>> > able to
>> > hear back from design on this proposal. Adieu for now!
>> > *This is also not to say that we should ditch, say, Firefox because it
>> > doesn't fit in with proposed "defaults." There are exceptions to the
>> > rules.
>> > **That is to say, it looks and behaves the way an Ubuntu app should in
>> > Ubuntu. That isn't to say that it's a full-time Ubuntu app. For example,
>> > Empathy would be eligible for this "stamp", even though it isn't
>> > developed
>> > for Ubuntu.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mailing list:
https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> > Post to :
ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Unsubscribe :
https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> > More help :
https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> >
>> >
>
>