On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:06 +0200, Danilo Šegan wrote: > Yesterday at 21:54, Andrew Sobala wrote: > > > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 20:42 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >> On Mer, 2005-07-13 at 16:27, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > >> > Level 2 - the app is actually written with GTK+. > >> > >> Why does this matter ? Surely it is about degrees of integration and HIG > >> compliance. > > > > I agree. I was similarly surprised by (on the wiki) the requirement to > > use .glade files as a possibility for one level; surely this > > certification should be about the user experience, not coding practises. > > It indirectly affects many things. Gtk+ and Glade using applications > have a better chance of having consistent user interface AND > translations. Maybe it would be Gnome-certified on a lower level, but > if it's not using stock menu items, and I have no power over managing > it's translation, I wouldn't certify it as "fully Gnome" since it > wouldn't fit on the desktop otherwise. > > Of course, there are counter examples such as Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0 > which use Gtk+, yet don't make use of any stock labels and icons if I > remember correctly.
You still don't need to use glade, though. Sure, it makes life easier, but it may also involve rewriting your application - using stock menu items is a GTK feature people can add to their applications (if they're not doing it already) if they want to do it to become GNOME-certified; utilising translations is similar. If they have to do a hefty UI rewrite, they may just ignore the certification standards as being unachievable - at which point you don't get a cool app integrating with the GNOME desktop, but a set of certification standards that are being ignored. Just my feelings, I could be wrong. -- Andrew _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
