Hey Allan! Allan Caeg wrote: > Sounds good, Gabriel. I think that's the entire list of "standards" > that we should look at. > > > The topic of GNOME standards for the idea of "GNOME Apps" for GNOME > 3.0 may have already been discussed in detail somewhere else. If it > has been, please point it out.
You probably want to check out the existing module inclusion guidelines [1], as well as the moduleset reorganisation threads on ddl [2, 3]. It would be good to have a discussion around UI validation once the new moduleset arrangements are made final, actually... > In addition to clarifying the criteria for platform compliance, my > intention for starting this thread is to give those apps and the > standards some publicity. It may be via a section on gnome.org, "GNOME > Compliant" badges on an app similar to the Ubuntu Software Center > (could be a new GNOME app), blog posts, or whatever. > > > Ideas? > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Gabriel Burt > <[email protected]> wrote: > Additional things beyond GNOME HIG compliance to test/report: > > - a11y support > - i18n support > - infrastructure (mailing list, issue tracker, website) > - license / copyright-assignment requirement > - release schedule and adherence > > This is basically the criteria that I assume are used to judge > apps > for acceptance into the new Applications release-team > category. > > Gabriel > > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Allan Caeg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Got this idea about starting an initiative to recognize apps > that comply > > with GNOME standards, which may or may not be limited to the > HIG. I'm not > > sure what else to consider. > > The motivation behind is to pay homage to those deserving > projects, promote > > the use of those apps vs. noncompliant alternatives, promote > the use of > > GNOME standards so more apps will comply, and help the > development of the > > HIG (and maybe other standards) gain traction. > > Thoughts? Just because an application is HIG compliant does not mean it is well designed. This is one issue the new version of the HIG will aim to correct: we want it to be less of a 'standard' and more of a 'resource'. There will still be some things that we want to keep consistent, of course, but there are also many areas where we want to move away from a one size fits all approach. This has some interesting consequences for how we do validation: 'quality review' might be a more appropriate than 'compliance'. Allan [1] http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing [2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-June/msg00001.html [3] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2010-October/msg00001.html -- Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org _______________________________________________ usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
