unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx>]

That is what the former half of the original post is about. Those guidelines
for what this hypothetical "standards-compliance" do not quite exist yet.
Before we worry about singling out ANY applications, we have to figure out
what exactly that application would entail, no?

With that in mind, we need to focus on ways that we can collaborate/get
approval for a sort of Ubuntu HIG that apps should abide by if they want to
get the hypothetical badge.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:10 PM, topdownjimmy <topdownjimmy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What in addition to being GTK-based would you propose as a requirement
> for being "standards-compliant"?
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>