unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
> >
> >
>