Calum Benson wrote: > > On 30 Aug 2006, at 13:30, Maxim Udushlivy wrote: >>> . >> That is the problem: those checklists become constraints that hinder UI >> innovation. As a programmer (artist to some extent) I want to learn >> common sense principles that possibly would allow me to implement >> interface in a more productive way than guidelines authors may think of >> - and not to loose my personality by just following templates. > > The HIG provides many of those principles too, and we actually made a > point of putting them at the front of the document, rather than the > back. Like many things in the HIG, it could do with a refresh, though. > Well, perhaps this dispute is in fact an "innovation vs tradition" philosophical conflict :) If this is true, there must be a place for both; and HIG's should exist, but only as recommendations, not as constraints. And a note about certification - all obvious HIG guidelines (checklists) I think should be moved from HIG to Gnome certification standard as "must" items - similar to those in Fedora: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
>> Windows programmers manage to create successful applications without >> guidelines. > > Hardly.. the Windows guidelines are the thickest ones on my bookshelf: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwue/html/welcome.asp > > > http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/Resources/windowsxp/default.mspx > This is not a reply to my sentence ;) Even if guidelines exist that does not mean they are widely used. >> I disagree with HIG existence (more below) - but I suppose >> my opinion is not very important here ;) > > If you remember the mess GNOME was becoming before the guidelines > existed, your opinion may be a little different :) > Arrived two years ago, so cannot compare... but may be it's just a developers' professional growth, not tied to HIG's in any way? >> So here is that principle that I think make Google successful: reduce >> number of UI controls and expand application functionality while >> preserving UI/functionality coherency. I think that consumer electronics >> inherently follow this principle (TV, video recorders, phones, etc.) > > Yet video recorders and phones have historically had some of the worst > UIs imaginable... so there must be more to it than that. > You commented an illustration, not the principle itself ;) The principle I expressed is in fact a modern GUI cornerstone! (oops...) >> Some thoughts about being a Gnome application... >> I remember there was such a thing on Windows as application >> certification. Perhaps it was not very useful on Windows but Gnome may >> adopt this process. > > It's already being discussed; feel free to add your thoughts to > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeCertification. > My main thought about Gnome is very general: too much bureaucracy and politics, not enough technology and real activity ;) _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
