Re: fundamentals of the gnome user interface

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> I am not sure whether a system of compliancy levels is a good idea. It seems
> to me that it would be better to just state the minimum standard of features
> a programm should have in order to consider itself to be gnome compliant. On
> top of that additional advise could be given, and of course gnome compliant
> programms should strive to follow this. I see no good reason to start ranking
> a programm to be more compliant or less. What would that be usefull for?
> Either you do comply to a standard or you don't. Microsoft is very good at
> just being a bit compliant with standards, which renders things useless,
> because in fact they do not comply.
> 
> 
> Jan

Compliancy levels are a good idea, because they effectively raise the bar
for application coders to continually strive to do better. By offering
incentives for coders to do this, we can expect to continaully see coders
improving their code to meet more and more strict requirements.

Compliancy levels are a good idea for both the coder and the user. The
coder becomes better and better, Gnome looks better and better (and
becomes more popular as a result) , and the end-user gets to benefit from
having a suite of very, very nice tools to use.

Make sense now?

Bowie