[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Workrave anyone?

 >>>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:34:35 -0500, Sean Middleditch
 >>>>> <elanthis@awesomeplay.com> was rumoured to have said:

 > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:20, Stelios Bounanos wrote:
 >> > Ugh - if that Workrave screenshot is recent, someone should file a bug
 >> > that they aren't HIG compliant in the least, either.  I just tried, but
 >> > I'm not going thru the effort of creating Yet Another Bugzilla Account
 >> > for one little app I never use.  ;-)
 >> Workrave is not part of GNOME2, so I don't see why non-compliance to
 >> GNOME's HIG is a bug. Do you think authors of unrelated (but perhaps
 >> GNOME-aware) software should be pressured into doing gnome-type UIs
 >> Am I missing something here?

 > Yes - creating non-HIG compliant GNOME-based applications is just
 > silly.  It's really no more difficult either way, and one way gives you
 > a clean, consistant, easy to use UI, while the other gives you some
 > hacked up only-understood-by-you mess.  The HIG's purpose isn't to
 > declare what the GNOME desktop should act like, it's purpose is to
 > provide guidelines for applications authors to make good programs that
 > don't have crap UIs.  Personally, I'm sick of havin to spend inordinate
 > amount of time guessing what authors intended with their UI.  A solid
 > set of standards help this; authors actually *using* them makes life
 > nice.

 > This is probably the worst part of the HIG - it's not clearly designated
 > and evangelized to application authors until they try to get their app
 > into GNOME core.  I try to do my part by placing bugs on every app I see
 > that fails to do so, and so far, the authors all are quite happy to make
 > their app more user-friendly and sexy.  ;-)

I see what you mean. I still have mixed feelings about GNOME's HIG,
and the UI changes in GNOME2 in particular, but the consistency is
definitely a good thing...

 >> >> 
 >> >> Ross
 >> > -- 
 >> > Sean Middleditch <elanthis@awesomeplay.com>


Reply to: