unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx>]

Seek and you shall find. I'm not aiming this at you in particular, but the
kind of mentality that your statement is indicative of.  We need not base
design decisions on how the community is going to react. That isn't a valid
argument for or against something. So what if some people think it is too
close to Apple? So what if some people think it's Ubuntu throwing it's
weight around.

Ubuntu has gone through the whole "oh you stole that from Apple" thing and
come out fine before. People are going to complain no matter what. Don't
worry about it. Just listen and if they say something constructive, use it
to improve. Don't stop before you've started just because someone is going
to complain.

As for a potential to widen a wedge in the community. I see no wedge. I see
some heated words and design decisions some people may not agree on, but we
carry on or step aside.

Ubuntu ALREADY stands out. There's no avoiding that.

Okay, thank you for reading that. Hopefully that will help mitigate the
defeatist posts.

Now, I was perusing the software-center design document earlier and saw that
the USC will, by design, put GTK versions of apps with multiple toolkits
above the other version. Essentially, I just want to take this idea a few
more steps up the ladder that it can be more useful for people.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Roland Taylor <rolandixor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  I'm with James on this one. It would be nice to have a definition of what
> an Ubuntu application is, but let's face it - that would drive a wedge in
> the wider community even wider than what currently exists. People would
> label Canonical as Apple and us users as fanboys, and essentially seek ways
> to alienate Ubuntu, just because it stands out.
>
> Essentially, while it would be great - we would have to word it very
> carefully, and be clear that all other applications are welcome.
>
>
> *When one seeks to stand out - they should first consider the cost of
> standing and the price of being out.
> *
>
> On 09/05/2011 09:27 PM, James Gifford wrote:
>
> I love that idea.
>
> However, It'd be seen by many as "too Apple-like". Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something to consider.
>
> Cheers,
> James Giffordhttp://jamesrgifford.com
>
> On Sep 5, 2011, at 20:36, Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx> <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
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>