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.