Calum Benson wrote: > On 12 Aug 2008, at 23:02, Glynn Foster wrote: > > >> On 13/08/2008, at 9:57 AM, Brian Cameron wrote: >> >>> I thought that the plan was that we would need to not include many >>> new >>> applications in the menus in Nevada. At least that's what Calum >>> Benson >>> seemed to be suggesting. To avoid a cluttered appearance. >>> >> I don't understand this logic personally. The idea of hiding menus >> entries in Nevada is only going to cause users who continue to use >> it pain. >> > > Not half as much pain as using an Applications menu loaded with dozens > of non-core applications of varying quality and accessibility, > duplicate functionality, non-obvious names etc... > > For better or for worse, I still consider the Nevada desktop to be the > closest thing we currently have to the next Solaris desktop. IMHO > this means choosing the default menu contents and layout as carefully > as ever (and certainly more carefully than JDS3), not using it as a > dumping ground for every app that we ever feel like shipping :) > > You know that once all the additional apps that are currently in spec-files-other went into nevada WOS, the menu layout between Nevada and OpenSolaris will be so far apart beyond recognition. That is the consequence of using Nevada as a dumping portal :(. While this may be not a problem for non-GUI app, but for applications that delivers a .desktop file, that is what going to happen! >> I think there's definitely a potential need for a Nevada desktop UI >> spec, especially since the branding is currently different there >> (though there may be plans to use the same on both?) >> > > There is already a Nevada UI desktop spec, although it's a bit out of > date currently: > <http://opensolaris.org/os/community/desktop/uispecs/nevada-uispec/> > > I intend to focus on the Nevada UI spec again once the 2008.11 UI spec > is frozen, because as you suggest, there probably ought to be more > convergence between the two than there is now. (But we certainly need > to figure out with marketing/branding where it makes sense to keep > them different.) > Due to the point I made above, this will be a impossible exercise I am afraid.
-Ghee > Cheeri, > Calum. > >
