On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 19:27, Stelios Bounanos wrote: > > This is probably the worst part of the HIG - it's not clearly designated > > and evangelized to application authors until they try to get their app > > into GNOME core. I try to do my part by placing bugs on every app I see > > that fails to do so, and so far, the authors all are quite happy to make > > their app more user-friendly and sexy. ;-) > > I see what you mean. I still have mixed feelings about GNOME's HIG, > and the UI changes in GNOME2 in particular, but the consistency is > definitely a good thing...
Ya, it's all personal taste. A lot of the supposed changes had me a little miffed at first, but I've gotten used to them. After some time, I actually see *why* things like, say, the button ordering are better. The default/affirmative/most used button in the bottom right just is plain easier to target, and the rules for naming buttons and dialog text also makes it a lot easier - you just have to look at the button and not read the whole dialog, in most cases. Other cases, like the not using option groups with the grove/box (like Workrave does), if you look you realize the dialog ends up filled with nonsense lines all over the place, and the titles on those groups are kinda hard to pickout/read; the HIG recommendation looks almost childish or too simplistic, but yet, it's just a lot easier to read, a lot cleaner. It for these reasons all apps possible should follow the HIG as best they can; the suggestions for UI in it are all there for a reason. They are better than the common alternatives. ;-) </evangelism> P.S. I have *really* got to stop writing these long e-mails that nobody but me cares about, don't I? ~,^ > > >> > >> >> > >> >> Ross > >> > -- > >> > Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > Rgds, > /-sb. >
