From: Stephan S. <gma...@sp...> - 2013-07-26 11:03:20
|
I'm not a developer, but I would like to bring attention to a potential point of contention: The choice of a HIG and how strictly to follow it. I went to a lot of trouble to ensure OK buttons on the right-hand side of my dialogs (GNOME/OSX style) rather than Cancel buttons (Windows/KDE style) and I've never felt fully comfortable in KDE since their switch from 3.5.x to 4.0. (Regardless of other concerns, all my Qt applications use QGtkStyle because too many Qt themes I've run into have no equivalent to the gtk-alternative-button-order=0 config key.) Aside from personal taste, there are also solid, objective reasons to put OK in the right-hand corner: http://uxmovement.com/buttons/why-ok-buttons-in-dialog-boxes-work-best-on-the-right/ As for my concern with how strictly to follow the HIG, I haven't had time to read the GNOME HIG in full yet, but I find LXDE's current design to be much more comfortable than GNOME's and I worry about how many of their design decisions they may have baked into their HIG. Essentially, I'm worried that following any HIG too strictly would compromise some of the correct design decisions made in LXDE in pursuit of some less useful standard cooked up by someone with very different goals. On 13-07-26 05:51 AM, PCMan wrote: > Hello, > Sorry to bother you guys with the same topic again. > It's really time-consuming to do the communication stuff, but it's inevitable. > It's better to have some consensus before really starting coding. > While the razor guys are doing their best pushing razor-qt 0.6 as > planned, I'd like to start preparing for the merge earlier. > > I wrote another wiki page, which is a draft for the merge and hope we > can coordinate better. > It also documented what we already have (but the list is not complete). > > http://wiki.lxde.org/en/Merge_LXDE-Qt_and_Razor-Qt > > Nothing is settled done yet. It's only a draft. > Some are just my own opinions and I wrote them down for ease of discussion. > Anything can be changed if anyone has different opinions. > Feel free to add different opinions either on the wiki page or discuss > in the ML. > > Previously we discussed about using single monolithic repo or > splitting razor-qt into smaller repos. > Seems that there are no objections about splitting it into smaller pieces. > I'd like to know if it's the right time to do it, or we need to wait > for razor-qt 0.6 release? > > We also need to know who is interested in working on which part so we > won't duplicate the work. > Regarding to the lxde side: > I'll work on the file manager part and try to see if I can make a > obconf qt port (openbox configuration tool). > About the panel, I'm willing to work on razor-panel instead of my own > poor lxpanel-qt. After I finish my file manager stuff, I'll see if > there's anything I can help for razor-panel. > Andriy is working on libfm and will make a new release soon. > Julien is working on lxsession now. > BTW, Julien, would you please document the dbus interface lxsession > currently provides in the wiki? > > Since lxsession is currently more feature-rich than razorqt-session > and it's a non-GUI program, I'd like to know if we can use lxsession > and make it adopt current razorqt-session features, including the > config dialogs. > Or if there're objections, at least we can make lxsession and > razorqt-session interchangeable first. > Comments are really wanted. > > Thank you all. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics > Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics > Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. > Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > |