discuss: consistency in KDE GUI

[Friedrich W. H. Kossebau]

Am Freitag, 22. Dezember 2006 15:10, schrieb Orville Bennett:
> On Dec 22, 2006, at 8:57 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Freitag, 22. Dezember 2006 14:47, schrieb Orville Bennett:
> >> On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:12 AM, subbukk wrote:
> >>> Should KDE core libs be engineered to encourage (or enforce) this
> >>> consistency?
> >>
> >> How do you encourage consistency with a set of libraries? I can see
> >> how you could enforce this, but "therein lies the path to destruction
> >> my son."
> >
> > Oh. What do you mean by this?
>
> By forcing someone to conform to your standards of what is best, you
> encourage them to go elsewhere.

Unless you give good arguments for the standard :)
And giving the developer a default implementation in terms of a lib also helps 
things to be done more quickly.
E.g. noone is forced to use a QPushButton. But don't we all use it?
Because it get's us a button that does nearly all in the way that makes sense?

> Some applications violate certain 
> aspects of the HIG as it stands, and will probably continue to do so
> in the future.

Are you sure they all violate by decision? Perhaps some developers simply 
concetrated on other things, those which were the itch they want to scratch. 
And just made a quick'n'dirty implementation for the things that had to be 
done, too. Because there was no default (implementation).

> If compliance were forced upon them they could choose 
> in the begin, they could easily have chosen another platform to
> develop on, if it's forced after, they could choose to spend valuable
> time trying to undo this instead of contributing to their respective
> apps. And that, that would be a shame.

Sure. :) But I don't see your point here. If they don't want to feel forced by 
using the convenience libs (which "enforce" the standard), they would have to 
implement the things anyway on their own. So what would they loose?

So thanks for explaning. But I disagree :)

Friedrich