<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2014-03-07 12:35 GMT+01:00 Richard Hughes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hughsient@gmail.com" target="_blank">hughsient@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I'm not sure anyone will be surprised in my goal of making the<br>
applications we show users have high quality content. XPM icons are a<br>
good first step, then it'll be things like missing icon transparency,<br>
AppData, translated AppData over the next few releases.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think such technological restrictions will achieve your goal.<br><br>If you really want "nice" screenshots and well-written descriptions, just do it and propose a manually-curated application list.[1]<br>
<br></div><div>If you want the application packagers and upstreams to be responsible for the content so that you don't have to, with the associated pride or shame about the content falling on the individual author of that content, that's also an option.<br>
<br></div><div>AFAICS having the application packagers and upstreams to be responsible for the content, but still reviewing it and looking for technological indications that the content is sub-par, and adding code and rules to enforce technological restrictions, has the disadvantages of both - you are still doing manual reviews and extra work complicating the software by adding technological restrictions[2], but you don't actually have the power to avoid low-quality content.<br>
</div><div> Mirek<br></div><div><br><br></div><div>[1] We haven't had a good flamewar this week :)<br>[2] XPM is an indication of "poor" quality only because there's such a
correlation within the current appdata collection; this correlation may
go away in a month (The technological response to "XPM is no longer supported" is clearly to take the existing XPM picture and convert it into something else.)<br></div></div></div></div>