<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Richard Hughes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hughsient@gmail.com" target="_blank">hughsient@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":195" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">Designing an application for the lowest common denominator does not<br>
give you a high-quality cohesive application that's easy to use and<br>
nice on the eye. It gives you a miss-mash of ugly noise that's hard to<br>
use. I think it's fine that we are essentially saying "you have to do<br>
X, Y, Z to be showcased on the workstation". I've essentially slipped<br>
into the role of the person making the decisions about the software<br>
installer on the workstation product, and also upstream maintainer of<br>
most of this stuff. If anybody wants to refer any of my decisions up<br>
to the workstation working group, I'd be happy to talk to them, but<br>
I've a feeling they would be *less* forgiving than I'm currently<br>
being.</div></blockquote></div><br>I think that is a bad idea to exclude applications from a Software manager, because they don't live up to some visual quality guidelines.</div><div class="gmail_extra">It don't benfit the endusers, if the software manager only shows 50% of the gui applications in the Fedora repositories.</div><div class="gmail_extra">What about not showing the icons if they dont have the need size, just show a default icon based on the application category</div><div class="gmail_extra">they you have both the good look and a lot of applications.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Tim</div></div>