unity-design team mailing list archive

[Carl Ansell <afccarl1994@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat 25 Feb 2012 20:30:24 GMT, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
> On 25. feb. 2012 20:54, Carl Ansell wrote:
> > How about just exact matches then? It needs to be clear to the user 
> > that the software centre is the place to search for applications. But 
> > then, if I search the dash for something I believe I have installed, 
> > but it turns out I haven't, then it is useful for the dash to return 
> > a link to available software so it can be installed. I do this often, 
> > because I have different applications installed on different PCs and 
> > end up forgetting what is installed on each PC.
> I very much agree with this for usability reasons. The only problem I 
> see with this, is if the search is sent to an external service, but I 
> don't think that's the case with the available-apps scope. I have 
> personally disabled the available-apps scope entirely and I think it 
> would be better as an opt-in instead of opt-out.
> > To prevent the pornview scenario happening, we definitely need 
> > something. I believe in the other discussion, it was suggested that 
> > filters are added to the privacy controls to turn off certain 
> > content. If this is introduced effectively, then the scenario above 
> > could become a non-issue.
> First of all, are you talking about names or content now? Because as I 
> said before, the PornView application has absolutely nothing to do 
> with pornography at all. It's a humorous name. Nothing more. And you 
> don't have to agree with the humor, but to sensor it would be 
> outrageous, in my opinion. For instance, Tim Cook could perfectly well 
> be the stage name of a Norwegian porn-star. ("kukk" in Norwegian is 
> slang for penis, and pronounced just the same). When Norwegian 
> children starts to learn English, they have plenty of fun with 
> similarly sounding words – because there's a whole lot of them. What 
> about Chinese words?
> Content is something else, though I'd be careful about messing too 
> much with that as well. But things like the Adult Lens, which actively 
> provides pornographic content, is probably something we can agree 
> should be in a different class. A lot of people find games of cards 
> and dice to be deeply offensive, since it creates the possibility of 
> gambling, which is the devils work... So, should Yatzee be placed in 
> the Adult category as well, just to be on the safe side?
> It would be a fairly thin catalog if it should only display things 
> that no-one in the entire world could ever find objectionable. I'm not 
> saying it isn't possible to find solutions to these issues, but I 
> think it's an extreme challenge.
I agree its a challenge. No doubt someone at Canonical is coming up 
with some clever solution to these problems. Using the opt-in approach 
you suggested could be beneficial, as the functionality remains 
available but only if you want it. I would definitely support this idea.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is eventually changed.