Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Sense is correct. We should spend time submitting patches to make things look better, and not impose guidelines that developers will just ignore anyway. On 09/18/2011 03:43 PM, Sense Egbert Hofstede wrote: On 18 September 2011 20:11, Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote: Jonathan Meek wrote on 07/09/11 19:33: Actually, I intended something more in depth than that. I asked one of the designers and am going to attempt to begin work on a comprehensive HIG. Everything about the design needs to be thought out, not just 'integrate with this.' The problem with this undertaking is that there are so few applications that can be considered Ubuntu applications. Less and more than you would think. (Though, I've only heard from one person, and his design choices may not be the consensus of the entire design team) ... I'd hope it isn't. ;-) But Thorsten Wilms was right: what will developers make out of it? Interface guidelines are useless unless they actually change developers' behavior. For example, Microsoft has extensive Windows UX guidelines on MSDN, but given all the copying Apple worry in this thread, it seems nobody here has even heard of them. Now, imagine these responses from application developers if you wrote some interface guidelines for Ubuntu: * Ubuntu design guidelines? I've never heard of them. * Jonathan Meek? I've never heard of him. Why should I do what he says? * Ubuntu? Ubuntu's just a distro, what business do they have setting 'guidelines' for applications? * I use Fedora for development, why should I care what Ubuntu wants? * Ubuntu? You want me to take advice from the people who designed Unity? Hah! * I read a couple of pages but it was really boring. * Gnome already has guidelines, this is just another example of Ubuntu trying to go their own way. Shame on them. Improving the design of Ubuntu applications is a design problem in itself. And even if those criticisms are unfair, they're going to come up. So if you want to make a difference, you need to have a way to minimize, or be able to address, each of those criticisms. Provisionally, Mr. Gifford is correct. The are going to be started on, and presented for peer review. I'm debating how to go about this now less than I am whether to go about it at all. I would like some opinions to feedback into this. I know what the designer said were good designed Ubuntu applications, but what do people here think are some? And why do you think that? (This includes, looks, structure, and behavior as well as integration.) ... This is the biggie. If guidelines are to be credible, they need to be either self-evidently logical, demonstrated to succeed in real Ubuntu applications, and/or written by people who designed successful Ubuntu applications. The Windows, Mac, and iOS guidelines can all use applications designed by the OS vendor as examples of what to do. But there are very few applications targeted for Ubuntu first, let alone Ubuntu exclusively. I think guidelines will be premature until that changes. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Guidelines are very great and such, but like you already said, many people will not even bother to read them. Even if we manage to get everyone to read the guidelines, then there is the issue of interpretation. You cannot have complete and perfect consistency if you don't want the guidelines to spell out the code that the developers have to use. We always say that we should take away the difficulty of choosing from users when they do not have the tools or knowledge available to make the right decision. The same logic applies here to developers. Most developers are not in the right position to make good decisions about interface design or about the correct implementation of a guideline. To do it right, we should take away their choice. That means: do not spend time implementing what we know about design in the text of guidelines, but spend our time implementing it in code. We should make GTK+ (and maybe Qt too) look better. Locate areas where things don't look so great and submit patches for them. Propose better default values for the properties, submit code that generates pretty menu bars, etc. We should take away choice by making the easiest solution available to developers the solution we want, e.g. writing beautiful and good implementations of standard behaviour (tabs, Ubuntu One, media playing, things like that) that developers can just plug into their applications. Because those methods will be the standard way of doing things, the easiest way of doing things, they will use them and with that they will automatically be consistent with the rest of the desktop. If the current
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan Meek wrote on 07/09/11 19:33: Actually, I intended something more in depth than that. I asked one of the designers and am going to attempt to begin work on a comprehensive HIG. Everything about the design needs to be thought out, not just 'integrate with this.' The problem with this undertaking is that there are so few applications that can be considered Ubuntu applications. Less and more than you would think. (Though, I've only heard from one person, and his design choices may not be the consensus of the entire design team) ... I'd hope it isn't. ;-) But Thorsten Wilms was right: what will developers make out of it? Interface guidelines are useless unless they actually change developers' behavior. For example, Microsoft has extensive Windows UX guidelines on MSDN, but given all the copying Apple worry in this thread, it seems nobody here has even heard of them. Now, imagine these responses from application developers if you wrote some interface guidelines for Ubuntu: * Ubuntu design guidelines? I've never heard of them. * Jonathan Meek? I've never heard of him. Why should I do what he says? * Ubuntu? Ubuntu's just a distro, what business do they have setting 'guidelines' for applications? * I use Fedora for development, why should I care what Ubuntu wants? * Ubuntu? You want me to take advice from the people who designed Unity? Hah! * I read a couple of pages but it was really boring. * Gnome already has guidelines, this is just another example of Ubuntu trying to go their own way. Shame on them. Improving the design of Ubuntu applications is a design problem in itself. And even if those criticisms are unfair, they're going to come up. So if you want to make a difference, you need to have a way to minimize, or be able to address, each of those criticisms. Provisionally, Mr. Gifford is correct. The are going to be started on, and presented for peer review. I'm debating how to go about this now less than I am whether to go about it at all. I would like some opinions to feedback into this. I know what the designer said were good designed Ubuntu applications, but what do people here think are some? And why do you think that? (This includes, looks, structure, and behavior as well as integration.) ... This is the biggie. If guidelines are to be credible, they need to be either self-evidently logical, demonstrated to succeed in real Ubuntu applications, and/or written by people who designed successful Ubuntu applications. The Windows, Mac, and iOS guidelines can all use applications designed by the OS vendor as examples of what to do. But there are very few applications targeted for Ubuntu first, let alone Ubuntu exclusively. I think guidelines will be premature until that changes. - -- mpt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk52NFkACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecrfYACgu152ebybXC0EsGhgSQ/nBtU0 g5kAnixYzKSiFcdmQjkxVCmZUR56wAgB =0RD1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
On 18 September 2011 20:11, Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan Meek wrote on 07/09/11 19:33: Actually, I intended something more in depth than that. I asked one of the designers and am going to attempt to begin work on a comprehensive HIG. Everything about the design needs to be thought out, not just 'integrate with this.' The problem with this undertaking is that there are so few applications that can be considered Ubuntu applications. Less and more than you would think. (Though, I've only heard from one person, and his design choices may not be the consensus of the entire design team) ... I'd hope it isn't. ;-) But Thorsten Wilms was right: what will developers make out of it? Interface guidelines are useless unless they actually change developers' behavior. For example, Microsoft has extensive Windows UX guidelines on MSDN, but given all the copying Apple worry in this thread, it seems nobody here has even heard of them. Now, imagine these responses from application developers if you wrote some interface guidelines for Ubuntu: * Ubuntu design guidelines? I've never heard of them. * Jonathan Meek? I've never heard of him. Why should I do what he says? * Ubuntu? Ubuntu's just a distro, what business do they have setting 'guidelines' for applications? * I use Fedora for development, why should I care what Ubuntu wants? * Ubuntu? You want me to take advice from the people who designed Unity? Hah! * I read a couple of pages but it was really boring. * Gnome already has guidelines, this is just another example of Ubuntu trying to go their own way. Shame on them. Improving the design of Ubuntu applications is a design problem in itself. And even if those criticisms are unfair, they're going to come up. So if you want to make a difference, you need to have a way to minimize, or be able to address, each of those criticisms. Provisionally, Mr. Gifford is correct. The are going to be started on, and presented for peer review. I'm debating how to go about this now less than I am whether to go about it at all. I would like some opinions to feedback into this. I know what the designer said were good designed Ubuntu applications, but what do people here think are some? And why do you think that? (This includes, looks, structure, and behavior as well as integration.) ... This is the biggie. If guidelines are to be credible, they need to be either self-evidently logical, demonstrated to succeed in real Ubuntu applications, and/or written by people who designed successful Ubuntu applications. The Windows, Mac, and iOS guidelines can all use applications designed by the OS vendor as examples of what to do. But there are very few applications targeted for Ubuntu first, let alone Ubuntu exclusively. I think guidelines will be premature until that changes. - -- mpt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk52NFkACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecrfYACgu152ebybXC0EsGhgSQ/nBtU0 g5kAnixYzKSiFcdmQjkxVCmZUR56wAgB =0RD1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Guidelines are very great and such, but like you already said, many people will not even bother to read them. Even if we manage to get everyone to read the guidelines, then there is the issue of interpretation. You cannot have complete and perfect consistency if you don't want the guidelines to spell out the code that the developers have to use. We always say that we should take away the difficulty of choosing from users when they do not have the tools or knowledge available to make the right decision. The same logic applies here to developers. Most developers are not in the right position to make good decisions about interface design or about the correct implementation of a guideline. To do it right, we should take away their choice. That means: do not spend time implementing what we know about design in the text of guidelines, but spend our time implementing it in code. We should make GTK+ (and maybe Qt too) look better. Locate areas where things don't look so great and submit patches for them. Propose better default values for the properties, submit code that generates pretty menu bars, etc. We should take away choice by making the easiest solution available to developers the solution we want, e.g. writing beautiful and good implementations of standard behaviour (tabs, Ubuntu One, media playing, things like that) that developers can just plug into their applications. Because those methods will be the standard way of doing things, the easiest way of doing things, they will use them and with that they will
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Every desktop environment has its own set HIG. Unity is sufficiently different than Gnome Shell or KDE4 that it merits some form of guidelines, even if they are as simple as must work with the global menu, must offer a tailored launcher menu and must follow global font settings. Most of these will be inherited from Gnome Shell and the rest will be additions for Unity-specific functionality (i.e. they will be supplementary rather than divisive). Above all, canonical applications (as in Canonical *and* canonical) must follow these guidelines to the letter. Ubuntu One and the Software Center currently stick out like sore thumbs from the rest of the desktop. Not good at all. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Ok, so reading through the thread, we all agree it's necessary - someone just needs to write it and present it for peer review and (hopefully) eventual adoption. Cheers, James Gifford http://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 7, 2011, at 3:59, Stefanos A. stapos...@gmail.com wrote: Every desktop environment has its own set HIG. Unity is sufficiently different than Gnome Shell or KDE4 that it merits some form of guidelines, even if they are as simple as must work with the global menu, must offer a tailored launcher menu and must follow global font settings. Most of these will be inherited from Gnome Shell and the rest will be additions for Unity-specific functionality (i.e. they will be supplementary rather than divisive). Above all, canonical applications (as in Canonical *and* canonical) must follow these guidelines to the letter. Ubuntu One and the Software Center currently stick out like sore thumbs from the rest of the desktop. Not good at all. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Since you included me on the CC list ... No. We don't all agree it's necessary. Some of us think such things are actively harmful. Scott K On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 01:31:56 PM James Gifford wrote: Ok, so reading through the thread, we all agree it's necessary - someone just needs to write it and present it for peer review and (hopefully) eventual adoption. Cheers, James Gifford http://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 7, 2011, at 3:59, Stefanos A. stapos...@gmail.com wrote: Every desktop environment has its own set HIG. Unity is sufficiently different than Gnome Shell or KDE4 that it merits some form of guidelines, even if they are as simple as must work with the global menu, must offer a tailored launcher menu and must follow global font settings. Most of these will be inherited from Gnome Shell and the rest will be additions for Unity-specific functionality (i.e. they will be supplementary rather than divisive). Above all, canonical applications (as in Canonical *and* canonical) must follow these guidelines to the letter. Ubuntu One and the Software Center currently stick out like sore thumbs from the rest of the desktop. Not good at all. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Actually, I intended something more in depth than that. I asked one of the designers and am going to attempt to begin work on a comprehensive HIG. Everything about the design needs to be thought out, not just 'integrate with this.' The problem with this undertaking is that there are so few applications that can be considered Ubuntu applications. Less and more than you would think. (Though, I've only heard from one person, and his design choices may not be the consensus of the entire design team) Provisionally, Mr. Gifford is correct. The are going to be started on, and presented for peer review. I'm debating how to go about this now less than I am whether to go about it at all. I would like some opinions to feedback into this. I know what the designer said were good designed Ubuntu applications, but what do people here think are some? And why do you think that? (This includes, looks, structure, and behavior as well as integration.) On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Stefanos A. stapos...@gmail.com wrote: Every desktop environment has its own set HIG. Unity is sufficiently different than Gnome Shell or KDE4 that it merits some form of guidelines, even if they are as simple as must work with the global menu, must offer a tailored launcher menu and must follow global font settings. Most of these will be inherited from Gnome Shell and the rest will be additions for Unity-specific functionality (i.e. they will be supplementary rather than divisive). Above all, canonical applications (as in Canonical *and* canonical) must follow these guidelines to the letter. Ubuntu One and the Software Center currently stick out like sore thumbs from the rest of the desktop. Not good at all. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Scott, I apologize for cc'ing you. A HIG would promote consistency - consistency is best for the user, because (just to pick one example) if Nautilus has its preferences pane stored under Edit Preferences, then all applications should have them stored under Edit Preferences, and not Tools Preferences or View Preferences or something else. It's all about consistency. The way it is right now, we are consistently inconsistent. Cheers, James Gifford http://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 7, 2011, at 14:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: Since you included me on the CC list ... No. We don't all agree it's necessary. Some of us think such things are actively harmful. Scott K On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 01:31:56 PM James Gifford wrote: Ok, so reading through the thread, we all agree it's necessary - someone just needs to write it and present it for peer review and (hopefully) eventual adoption. Cheers, James Gifford http://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 7, 2011, at 3:59, Stefanos A. stapos...@gmail.com wrote: Every desktop environment has its own set HIG. Unity is sufficiently different than Gnome Shell or KDE4 that it merits some form of guidelines, even if they are as simple as must work with the global menu, must offer a tailored launcher menu and must follow global font settings. Most of these will be inherited from Gnome Shell and the rest will be additions for Unity-specific functionality (i.e. they will be supplementary rather than divisive). Above all, canonical applications (as in Canonical *and* canonical) must follow these guidelines to the letter. Ubuntu One and the Software Center currently stick out like sore thumbs from the rest of the desktop. Not good at all. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 03:16:40 PM James Gifford wrote: Scott, I apologize for cc'ing you. A HIG would promote consistency - consistency is best for the user, because (just to pick one example) if Nautilus has its preferences pane stored under Edit Preferences, then all applications should have them stored under Edit Preferences, and not Tools Preferences or View Preferences or something else. It's all about consistency. The way it is right now, we are consistently inconsistent. Yes, but the Ubuntu project is bigger than the Ubuntu desktop. I think that a higher level view is needed first. I think that applications should look and feel native in the environment that the user has chosen to use. As an example of this, Qt and GTK have a reverse arrangement for which side OK and cancel go on, but Qt will detect if it's running in a Gnome environment and use the default arrangement for GTK (the reverse is not true, it would be nice if GTK did the same). My chosen desktop environment is KDE's Plasma workspace, but many of the applications I use are GTK apps and I want them to look and feel at home. The reverse is also true, so I want KDE applications to look/feel at home in Gnome 3 or Unity. In Kubuntu we ship gtk2-engines-oxygen and appmenu-gtk so that when users to install gtk applications they look/feel as native as possible. I think if users have to consider Oh, this one is KDE, so I should pick the Gnome one instead we are doing it wrong. The users should pick the one that meets their needs the best. Scott K ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
I'm with James on this one. It would be nice to have a definition of what an Ubuntu application is, but let's face it - that would drive a wedge in the wider community even wider than what currently exists. People would label Canonical as Apple and us users as fanboys, and essentially seek ways to alienate Ubuntu, just because it stands out. Essentially, while it would be great - we would have to word it very carefully, and be clear that all other applications are welcome. /When one seeks to stand out - they should first consider the cost of standing and the price of being out. / On 09/05/2011 09:27 PM, James Gifford wrote: I love that idea. However, It'd be seen by many as too Apple-like. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something to consider. Cheers, James Gifford http://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 5, 2011, at 20:36, Jonathan Meekshrouded.cl...@gmail.com 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@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
I don't think it would drive the community apart at all. In fact, this would most likely promote key apps that fit best within Ubuntu, and by doing so, would increase the competition for better apps across the whole of the ecosystem. As someone who is more visual than code oriented, I can easily say that there are very few apps that look at all like they fit within Ubuntu, at least with its current theme of Light. Most apps seem anything but light, with their bloated toolbars and adherence to different sets of rules. A standard would make the whole of Ubuntu more pleasing, not just to regular user, but to those who use it seriously. I feel that the more serious users would like it as well if their favorite apps acted in similar ways so that there is little to no barrier between on app or another. Though there would be some die hards that would decry it as Linux blasphemy, the model would in the end help achieve the goal of Ubuntu, an easier Linux for real people. So no matter what one does to help there will always be a group of users that will cry foul. On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Roland Taylor rolandi...@gmail.com wrote: I'm with James on this one. It would be nice to have a definition of what an Ubuntu application is, but let's face it - that would drive a wedge in the wider community even wider than what currently exists. People would label Canonical as Apple and us users as fanboys, and essentially seek ways to alienate Ubuntu, just because it stands out. Essentially, while it would be great - we would have to word it very carefully, and be clear that all other applications are welcome. *When one seeks to stand out - they should first consider the cost of standing and the price of being out. * On 09/05/2011 09:27 PM, James Gifford wrote: I love that idea. However, It'd be seen by many as too Apple-like. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something to consider. Cheers, James Giffordhttp://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 5, 2011, at 20:36, Jonathan Meek shrouded.cl...@gmail.com shrouded.cl...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Its interesting that there are 2 different opinions on this. I think that how it is managed will be the definitive factor on whether it drive the community apart or not. If there is an Ubuntu 'team' that would apply themes, Unity and panel integration etc, then it should be ok as long as bugs patched in Ubuntu have their fixes sent upstream. The current dark bar under the panel should be integrated into more apps, even those not default, in order to make them fit the theme as well as possible and make the whole desktop appear to flow more coherently. And its also true that some users wont like it. But then, the benefits of Linux should keep them at bay - if they don't like it, they can change it. On 06/09/11 15:40, cmaglothin wrote: I don't think it would drive the community apart at all. In fact, this would most likely promote key apps that fit best within Ubuntu, and by doing so, would increase the competition for better apps across the whole of the ecosystem. As someone who is more visual than code oriented, I can easily say that there are very few apps that look at all like they fit within Ubuntu, at least with its current theme of Light. Most apps seem anything but light, with their bloated toolbars and adherence to different sets of rules. A standard would make the whole of Ubuntu more pleasing, not just to regular user, but to those who use it seriously. I feel that the more serious users would like it as well if their favorite apps acted in similar ways so that there is little to no barrier between on app or another. Though there would be some die hards that would decry it as Linux blasphemy, the model would in the end help achieve the goal of Ubuntu, an easier Linux for real people. So no matter what one does to help there will always be a group of users that will cry foul. On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Roland Taylor rolandi...@gmail.com mailto:rolandi...@gmail.com wrote: I'm with James on this one. It would be nice to have a definition of what an Ubuntu application is, but let's face it - that would drive a wedge in the wider community even wider than what currently exists. People would label Canonical as Apple and us users as fanboys, and essentially seek ways to alienate Ubuntu, just because it stands out. Essentially, while it would be great - we would have to word it very carefully, and be clear that all other applications are welcome. /When one seeks to stand out - they should first consider the cost of standing and the price of being out. / On 09/05/2011 09:27 PM, James Gifford wrote: I love that idea. However, It'd be seen by many as too Apple-like. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something to consider. Cheers, James Gifford http://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 5, 2011, at 20:36, Jonathan Meekshrouded.cl...@gmail.com mailto:shrouded.cl...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
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.cl...@gmail.com 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@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
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 topdownji...@gmail.com 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.cl...@gmail.com 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@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
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.cl...@gmail.com 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 topdownji...@gmail.com 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.cl...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
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 topdownji...@gmail.com 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.cl...@gmail.com 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 topdownji...@gmail.com 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.cl...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
True and an excellent point. I'm not saying this is for all developers. But for those who what to create that... *experience* for others, this will be the thing for them to go by. As for fragmentation. There's no real-- I don't see it as an issue (personally). Because, the guidelines will primarily concern themselves with the look and feel of an app, based on good design. And good design is good design no matter what system it shows up on. (Well, not ENTIRELY accurate, but I assume you get the gist of what I mean.) So the app developers gets some good design guidelines to make his or her app better knowing they are following what would potentially be professional designer approved specs. On top of this, it would be recommended to add Unity integration and such. But, we all know apps can exist just fine without all those bells and whistles. It's there if you have it, not in the way if you don't. (IE, Gwibber's Unity quicklist in no way interferes with running the application in GNOME Shell, or have a message counter for Thunderbird doesn't make it a worse application in other environments. Make sense? On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Thorsten Wilms t...@freenet.de wrote: On 09/06/2011 06:59 PM, Jonathan Meek wrote: Seek and you shall find. I'm not aiming this at you in particular, but the kind of mentality that your statement is indicative of. We need not base design decisions on how the community is going to react. That isn't a valid argument for or against something. So what if some people think it is too close to Apple? So what if some people think it's Ubuntu throwing it's weight around. Ubuntu has gone through the whole oh you stole that from Apple thing and come out fine before. People are going to complain no matter what. Don't worry about it. Just listen and if they say something constructive, use it to improve. Don't stop before you've started just because someone is going to complain. As for a potential to widen a wedge in the community. I see no wedge. I see some heated words and design decisions some people may not agree on, but we carry on or step aside. Sounds like looking away on purpose ;) I agree, if that is what you are saying, that design decisions are often, but of course not exclusively, met with at best half-informed, poorly constructed criticism. Opinions thrown out by people who usually will not get involved beyond that point. A lot of noise best treated as such. But when it comes to defining what an Ubuntu App shall be, and to creating a custom HIG, the question is: What will developers make out of it? Will it seem like Ubuntu is asking for extra work? May it be asking for things that would be good in the context of any other distribution, anyway? Does it further needless fragmentation? Or is it about adjustments to make one single chosen platform really shine? Developers might prefer to think of themselves as Linux developers, not Ubuntu developers (to just skip over entirely OS-independent). -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ __**_ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelphttps://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Maybe this should strictly be the set of applications that gets installed-by-default, or included-on-the-cd/dvd? These would typically constitute the Ubuntu experience, right? Maybe it's everything in main, and not in restricted/universe/multiverse? Further, maybe anything that's not part of the ubuntu experience should just not be in main, but be delegated elsewhere... -- Jeremy Nickurak -= Email/XMPP: -= jer...@nickurak.ca =- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
Jeremy Nickurak jer...@nickurak.ca wrote: Maybe this should strictly be the set of applications that gets installed-by-default, or included-on-the-cd/dvd? These would typically constitute the Ubuntu experience, right? Maybe it's everything in main, and not in restricted/universe/multiverse? Further, maybe anything that's not part of the ubuntu experience should just not be in main, but be delegated elsewhere... Considering everything in Kubuntu is in Main, that's probably not the criterion you're looking for. Scott K ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
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@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
On 5 September 2011 20:36, Jonathan Meek shrouded.cl...@gmail.com 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.) It's very possible to write a Qt app that looks and feels fully native in GNOME/Unity. And I believe Qt apps will look better outside of GNOME than GTK ones will. Also there are a lot of good apps available in KDE that may not be available elsewhere in Ubuntu (kdeedu is but one example). 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. You are very welcome to write a Ubuntu HIG and propose it. If you can attend an UDS, that would help a lot with promoting your proposal but UDS isn't necessary. Ubuntu community members can get involved in nearly all parts of the Ubuntu development process, limited only by their time, abilities, and desire. Please don't feel that you have to be a Canonical employee to contribute. The Linux and open source community is much more than just Ubuntu. You might also want to help GNOME with updating their HIG for GNOME 3. I imagine a Ubuntu HIG would be the GNOME HIG with a few differences of opinion anyway. Jeremy ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
It's very possible to write a Qt app that looks and feels fully native in GNOME/Unity. And I believe Qt apps will look better outside of GNOME than GTK ones will. Also there are a lot of good apps available in KDE that may not be available elsewhere in Ubuntu (kdeedu is but one example). You are very welcome to write a Ubuntu HIG and propose it. If you can attend an UDS, that would help a lot with promoting your proposal but UDS isn't necessary. Ubuntu community members can get involved in nearly all parts of the Ubuntu development process, limited only by their time, abilities, and desire. Please don't feel that you have to be a Canonical employee to contribute. The Linux and open source community is much more than just Ubuntu. You might also want to help GNOME with updating their HIG for GNOME 3. I imagine a Ubuntu HIG would be the GNOME HIG with a few differences of opinion anyway. I'm not sure how the formatting of this will look, but I'll go ahead and say I want to tackle paragraph one as one issue and 2-3 as the second. So, re:Qt app. Yes, it will behave natively, there is no denying that. But it has to be coded very specifically to do so. If just a standard Qt app, it will pull in icons for it's app menu (something no GTK apps I can think of do) and any buttons will have items underlined in them for keyboard shortcuts by default (Someone please correct me on that if I'm wrong) which makes it one of those VERY slight, but noticeable things that make them stand out. Would the average user pick up on that? Likely not. But an inconsistency is an inconsistency. (Note, I'm not discounting the inclusion of Qt in Ubuntu, just that there should be a definitive toolkit for definitive apps) Re: HIG. I cannot make it to UDS (though I do wish i could). It is possible to create a guideline, but I'm under the impression that it would require some input from Ubuntu designers to define what should be and what shouldn't because they are in charge of the (C/c)anonical defaults. Without their input, it comes down to guesswork on how things should be handled in an Ubuntu App. However, once their general rules are established, it would primarily be a community thing to run the ball to the goal line. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Ubuntu Applications
I love that idea. However, It'd be seen by many as too Apple-like. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something to consider. Cheers, James Gifford http://jamesrgifford.com On Sep 5, 2011, at 20:36, Jonathan Meek shrouded.cl...@gmail.com 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@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
