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 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
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
