secondary window titles

Stephen Leaf smileaf at
Tue Nov 14 14:59:36 GMT 2006

I personally think the KDE conventions are the best anyway. And would hate to 
see KDE screw them up for other platform users. for the sake of consistency 
with the other platform.

If we did have an option to make it consistent with other environments then 
we'd have to supply that for a pure kde system also. Otherwise the user will 
think those conventions _are_ the KDE conventions and then later when they 
try to use a pure KDE system could get all confused.

Also depending on what convention is changed it could change and more 
complicate things for others while trying to help them with a problem.
What conventions would we adhere to? menu layouts?, window titles? button 
placements? would we even have a KDE system after all is said and done?

While I think of that I think of many of us trying to help a kubuntu user use 
their kcontrol to configure something or tell them where a menu option they 
can't find is. 90% of the time we always tell them to go to #kubuntu 
I'd rather not have to ask: kde version, platform/distribution, and finally, 
what platform's conventions do you use?
I can't imagine how many "Huh??" "what do you mean conventions?" we'd get.

And to go even further, What is the point of having a HIG team anyway if we 
are just going to use other's? sure to develop ours but what's the point if 
you have only half of the comunity using it? 
how consistent is that?
that's like forcing a RedHat guy to go fix a Debian user's computer.
Lets keep KDE consistent shall we?

Stephen Leaf

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 5:28 am, Luciano Montanaro wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 November 2006 12:00, David Jarvie wrote:
> > On Monday 13 November 2006 22:42, Eike Hein wrote:
> > >Benjamin Meyer wrote:
> > >> Perhaps we might not have to subclass some dialogs from Qt just to set
> > >> the caption, but consistency is the biggest reason especially sense we
> > >> want to start launching our applications in OS X and windows.
> > >
> > >The question it comes down to is what the overriding
> > >agenda of the KDE project is: to develop a free desk-
> > >top environment/ecosystem, or to turn kdelibs into
> > >a library for cross-platform application development.
> >
> > If KDE is a desktop environment, it doesn't matter whether it adheres to
> > existing standards on OS X or Windows, because it will be used in place
> > of the existing desktops on those platforms. On the other hand, if KDE
> > applications are to be run outside the KDE desktop, they presumably need
> > to adhere to non-KDE conventions. In the latter case, an app running on
> > pure Windows needs to adhere to Windows conventions, an app running on
> > KDE on Windows needs to adhere to KDE conventions, etc. So it's not a
> > question of KDE changing its conventions to suit other platforms - the
> > possible requirement is to enable applications to appear differently
> > depending on which _desktop environment_ they are running on, rather than
> > which _operating system_ they are on.
> Well, that depends. If the port to other platform is mainly for the
> convenience of our current users, I suppose using the same  conventions
> across the board is the best option. This makes switching platforms easier
> when needed (no need to change habits). This means, the underlying platform
> is just a detail, and KDE is meant to actually be the main interface to the
> computer.
> On the other hand, if applications are to be run in other desktop
> environment, for the convenience of those other platform users, it makes
> sense to adopt the other desktop convention.
> Personally, if I were forced to use - say - Windows, I'd love to have the
> KDE applications availabe, and to use KDE desktop environment conventions
> as much as possible, since those are the ones I'm accustomed to. So I'd
> like that the "other desktop integration" feature, if developed, to be
> optional. Sorry, Aaron! :)
> Ciao,
> Luciano

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list