headers
Murray Cumming | 1 Apr 2007 17:36
Gravatar

Re: About standards

On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 01:45 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
> Dear lazy mailinglist:
> 
> I'm facing the writing of
> https://edit.gnome.jardigrec.eu/en/take-the-tour/usable-accessible-standards-quality
> 
> The page is called "Standarized" and we will include there (as you see
> from the provisional URL) usability, accessibility and quality in
> general.
> 
> Can you help listing the standards worth mentioning we are following,
> promoting, building...
> 
> We have the HIG. We have freedesktop.org. What else?

Here are a few. We seem to have removed this section from later versions
of the release notes:
http://www.gnome.org/start/2.10/notes/rnstandards.html

--

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc <at> murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Quim Gil | 1 Apr 2007 22:59
Picon

Re: About standards

On 4/1/07, Murray Cumming <murrayc <at> murrayc.com> wrote:
> Here are a few.

Thanks!

These go into really technical details (as it should be for that
page). I have ended up doing this:
http://gnome.jardigrec.eu/en/take-the-tour/usable-accessible-standards-quality

--

-- 
Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Murray Cumming | 2 Apr 2007 10:52
Gravatar

Re: About standards

On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 23:59 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Murray Cumming <murrayc <at> murrayc.com> wrote:
> > Here are a few.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> These go into really technical details (as it should be for that
> page). I have ended up doing this:
> http://gnome.jardigrec.eu/en/take-the-tour/usable-accessible-standards-quality

I would like to correct these pages as I see them, but I don't see a way
to register so I can log in.

--

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc <at> murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Vincent Untz | 3 Apr 2007 11:28
Picon

Re: About standards

Le dimanche 01 avril 2007, à 01:45, Quim Gil a écrit :
> Dear lazy mailinglist:
> 
> I'm facing the writing of
> https://edit.gnome.jardigrec.eu/en/take-the-tour/usable-accessible-standards-quality
> 
> The page is called "Standarized" and we will include there (as you see
> from the provisional URL) usability, accessibility and quality in
> general.
> 
> Can you help listing the standards worth mentioning we are following,
> promoting, building...
> 
> We have the HIG. We have freedesktop.org. What else?

Note that freedesktop.org things are not standards: they're
specifications :-)

I'm working at the freedesktop.org level to fix the message so that this
is clearer.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
--

-- 
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list <at> gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Thilo Pfennig | 4 Apr 2007 17:16
Favicon

redifining GNOME office.

Hi,

I suggest we redefine GNOME Office. See als this bug: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422337.

The Wikipedia website says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Office

The Ubuntu 6.10 documentation also includes the following as part of the GNOME Office product suite:

I suggest that rather than every distribution does its own definition we agree to extend the concept and also to work again on this field. This also means that we should encourage to work on the weakness. Like that we still miss a presentation program.

Would like to see some other opinions on this topic.


Thilo

--
Thilo Pfennig
http://issues.foresightlinux.org/confluence/x/R 
<div>
<p>Hi,<br><br>I suggest we redefine GNOME Office. See als this bug: <a href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422337">http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422337</a>.<br><br>The Wikipedia website says <br clear="all"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Office">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Office</a><br><br></p>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28Linux%29" title="Ubuntu (Linux)">Ubuntu</a> 6.10 documentation also includes the following as part of the GNOME Office product suite:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dia" title="Dia">Dia</a>, a diagram editor</li>
<li>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape" title="Inkscape">Inkscape</a>, a vector graphics editor</li>
<li>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_GIMP" title="The GIMP">
The GIMP</a>, the classic image editor</li>
<li>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planner_%28project_management%29&amp;action=edit" class="new" title="Planner (project management)">Planner</a>, a project management solution
</li>
</ul>I suggest that rather than every distribution does its own definition we agree to extend the concept and also to work again on this field. This also means that we should encourage to work on the weakness. Like that we still miss a presentation program.
<br><br>Would like to see some other opinions on this topic.<br><br><br>Thilo<br><br>-- <br>Thilo Pfennig<br><a href="http://issues.foresightlinux.org/confluence/x/R">http://issues.foresightlinux.org/confluence/x/R</a>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Ken VanDine | 4 Apr 2007 18:55
Gravatar

Re: redifining GNOME office.

I definately agree.  Not sure I agree with wikipedia says makes up
GNOME Office.  But we need something that we can say works together,
abiword, gnumeric and gnome-db for sure.  We still need a presentation
app, criawips also seems dead.  Lets get these revitalized.

I know people just say OpenOffice.org is good enough, I simply don't
agree.  Yes it is very full featured and pretty compatible with M$
Office.  However, it isn't well integrated in GNOME.  One of the
things I love about GNOME is out well integrated things are.  But OOo
has it's own print dialog... just for a simple example.  We need
something to fill this void.

I don't think GNOME Office should be a product by itself, but more of
a collaboration of other projects to play well together.  The biggest
issue I see right now is the lack of a impress alternative.  Anyone
know the status of criawips?

--Ken

On 4/4/07, Thilo Pfennig <thilopfennig <at> foresightlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suggest we redefine GNOME Office. See als this bug:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422337.
>
> The Wikipedia website says
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Office
>
>
>
> The Ubuntu 6.10 documentation also includes the following as part of the
> GNOME Office product suite:
> Dia, a diagram editor
> Inkscape, a vector graphics editor
>  The GIMP, the classic image editor
> Planner, a project management solution I suggest that rather than every
> distribution does its own definition we agree to extend the concept and also
> to work again on this field. This also means that we should encourage to
> work on the weakness. Like that we still miss a presentation program.
>
> Would like to see some other opinions on this topic.
>
>
> Thilo
>
> --
> Thilo Pfennig
> http://issues.foresightlinux.org/confluence/x/R
> --
> marketing-list mailing list
> marketing-list <at> gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
>
>
Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Alex Hudson | 4 Apr 2007 19:13

Re: redifining GNOME office.

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 12:55 -0400, Ken VanDine wrote:
> I definately agree.  Not sure I agree with wikipedia says makes up
> GNOME Office.  But we need something that we can say works together,
> abiword, gnumeric and gnome-db for sure.  We still need a presentation
> app, criawips also seems dead.  Lets get these revitalized.

I don't think "GNOME Office" needs to be short-hand for "the GNOME
Office suite"; I think it does need to be much more about integration
and collaboration.

So, for example, I don't see why both Abiword and OO Writer can't be
part of GNOME office. They appeal to totally different types of users,
and don't really compete in terms of functionality. Both should be
"first class" in terms of the GNOME desktop: yes, OOo is very sucky in
some areas (mostly the UI), but that does seem to be improving very
rapidly (and perhaps would be quicker with GNOME pushing it).

I think it's more important that programs are able to work together well
(e.g., good OpenDocument support, that kind of thing) and work well in
the overall desktop. Programs like Abiword et al. are definitely
worthwhile IMHO, but I don't see them replacing OOo in my daily work in
the next few years - they're just not "big" enough. It seems important
to me that they all work well in GNOME.

Cheers,

Alex.
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Quim Gil | 4 Apr 2007 21:08
Picon

Re: redifining GNOME office.

Why don't we do the opposite: close officially GNOME Office and keep
working on the interoperability and integration between GNOME
applications.

Do we need a concept of "Office" for GNOME nowadays? There is a lot of
people working in offices with computers in the XXIth century, and
they use all kinds of applications.

For instance, who could strongly disagree if someone would propose a
GNOMEish Office suite made with

Epiphany - Evolution - Gaim - Abiword - Gnumeric

The sensible combinations are multiple, who are we to decide what is
Office and what is not? Also important: without MS Office and its free
clone OpenOffice, would we be discussing now about GNOME Office?

I agree the tools should be integrated, but this principle is
applicable to (at least) all the products of the official GNOME
release. No need to remark a weak "Office" concept to work on actual
functionality.

--

-- 
Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org
Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Ken VanDine | 4 Apr 2007 21:29
Gravatar

Re: redifining GNOME office.

That would be fine with me, I just want to get all the areas covered.
The major week point is the lack of a presentation app.

--Ken

On 4/4/07, Quim Gil <qgil <at> gnome.org> wrote:
> Why don't we do the opposite: close officially GNOME Office and keep
> working on the interoperability and integration between GNOME
> applications.
>
> Do we need a concept of "Office" for GNOME nowadays? There is a lot of
> people working in offices with computers in the XXIth century, and
> they use all kinds of applications.
>
> For instance, who could strongly disagree if someone would propose a
> GNOMEish Office suite made with
>
> Epiphany - Evolution - Gaim - Abiword - Gnumeric
>
> The sensible combinations are multiple, who are we to decide what is
> Office and what is not? Also important: without MS Office and its free
> clone OpenOffice, would we be discussing now about GNOME Office?
>
> I agree the tools should be integrated, but this principle is
> applicable to (at least) all the products of the official GNOME
> release. No need to remark a weak "Office" concept to work on actual
> functionality.
>
> --
> Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org
> --
> marketing-list mailing list
> marketing-list <at> gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
>
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Alex Hudson | 4 Apr 2007 22:02

Re: redifining GNOME office.

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 22:08 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
> Why don't we do the opposite: close officially GNOME Office and keep
> working on the interoperability and integration between GNOME
> applications.

I think we're in rough agreement; whether or not there is an official
"GNOME Office", we're saying that there ought to be a broad idea of how
office-type tools can work together in GNOME rather than a narrow idea
of a single suite with a single set of applications.

What users probably care more about is that their applications can read
their files (so, I think OpenDocument is important, though users might
not realise that), and that basic stuff that Ken mentioned works:
open/save dialogs are all consistent, printing is consistent, and the UI
fits with GNOME.

But I think we also need to keep sight of the fact that office-type apps
are very important to many users, especially those using GNOME for work.
They are the main day-to-day productivity tools, and I think GNOME could
do a lot better job integrating them. From a marketing point of view, I
think we would lose an important constituency (those making purchasing
decisions, etc.) if we didn't highlight GNOME as being excellent for
Office tasks: whether or not that means having a GNOME Office, I'm not
sure, but I wouldn't want to lose that concept completely.

Things like being able to link e-mails from Evo into tomboy are just
scratching the surface, we should be able to link all our data in there
if we like (e.g., having a note for a project, and links to relevant
e-mails, documents, etc.). GNOME's role in that kind of desktop is one
primarily of ensuring apps talk to each other and work in concert, IMHO.
I think we can still communicate something meaningful at that level
which primarily applies to productivity apps.

Cheers,

Alex.
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane