On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 15:06 +0800, Allan Caeg wrote: > Hello, > > Mozilla is coming up with a new Add-ons Manager UI for Firefox. I was > asked what Linux-specific stuff should be designed and how much should > be specified, because the look and feel depends on the DE's settings. > I said that all I can think of at that time is that it should follow > the GTK+ "skinning" of XUL like how other XUL elements do it, because > the Add-ons Manager doesn't yet (in Firefox 4.0 Beta 4). > > After looking at the Add-ons Manager a while ago, it looks like it's a > bit alienated in my GNOME desktop. Apparently, other than the lack of > skinning, it's because of the widgets (or however they should be > called) that I don't usually see on other apps. Perhaps, Firefox would > fit more in the GNOME desktop if it followed the UI Patterns. > > Right now, the UI Patterns could use some help (see the Etherpad > page). In the future, cross-platform apps can refer to it. Right now, > correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that we can simply assess which > UI elements are fit and not.
That UI Patterns page is ollldddd and I wouldn't pay too much attention to that Etherpad either. The HIG [1] are still the recommended guidelines, and the in-progress future version can be found here [2]. (But yes, it needs work.) > Should we encourage cross-platform apps like Firefox to follow GNOME's > UI Patterns? This *could* be an issue because GNOME isn't the only DE, > so this solution may not be beneficial for KDE and maybe environments. > > Thoughts? There may be specific instances where a GNOME pattern leads a user to do or think the wrong thing in a third party app, so it's good to review for that. Generally though, consistency shouldn't matter all that much if it's well designed. Allan [1] http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/ [2] http://live.gnome.org/UsabilityProject/HIG3 -- IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org _______________________________________________ usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
