unity-design team mailing list archive

[topdownjimmy <topdownjimmy@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
>
>