unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.