[indiana-discuss] [desktop-discuss] 2008.11 UI Spec

[Ghee Teo]

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.
>
>