Guidelines draft: Apps and launchers

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Elad Alfassa <elad at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Since apparently we can't remove anything from default without having a
> "policy", and we can't ask packagers to fix their software either, I have to
> write this message.

Yeah, that's not true.  We can remove things as we see fit without policy.

> Apparently, not including a package by default is seen as "punishment". So,
> instead of doing actual work on bugfixing or debugging Fedora 21, or working
> on our website so it'll be ready for release time, I have to write this
> email message. I assumed the whole idea of Fedora.Next was to reduce
> bureaucracy and making sure we ship a high quality product. Apparently, I
> was wrong, and the point of Fedora.next seems to be *increasing* bureaucracy
> and having to discuss and write a policy for every one line commit we do.

You don't have to write a policy to justify a one line change.
Writing a policy is helpful for issues beyond this specific problem.
While you might view it as bureaucracy (which it is), if it's well
written it will help avoid conflicts in the future.

> In the following policy, I differentiate between "app launcher" and "app".
> An "app launcher" is a desktop file+icon that is shown in the application
> view, clicking on it would launch the app.
> An "app" is an application as defined by the GNOME 3 HIG (link TBD when HIG
> is published)
>
> As always in policies, mandatory items are marked with the words "must" and
> "must not", the rest is nice-to-have.
>
> App launchers in Fedora workstation *must*:

This doesn't really seem specific to Workstation.  We should aim for
distro-wide first, so other products have a similar look and feel.  If
they need to deviate, they can do so later.

>  * Have a unique 64x64 launcher icon (the same icon MUST NOT be used for one
> default launcher).

I don't understand the "default launcher" follow on, nor why it isn't
it's own bullet.

>  * Have a matching High Contrast icon.
>  * Have a name that is either short enough to not be elipsized by the shell
> or immediately recognizable even when elipsized.
>  * Have a comment field in the desktop file with a one line summary of what
> the app is.
>
> App launchers in Fedora workstation *should*:
>  * Launch software that is an actual app - see the GNOME 3 HIG on the exact
> definition (link TBD when the HIG is published)
>  * If the app is not an actual app, it should have the appropriate desktop
> file categories to be placed in the Sundry folder in GNOME Shell.
>
> Apps in Fedora Workstation *must*:
>  * Not depend on / pull in other apps OR app launchers.
>  * Have exactly *one* app launcher - ie. two launchers to two separate parts
> of the same app is not allowed.
>  * Be packaged separately (subpackages are okay) form other apps OR plugins.
>  * Installable and removable independently from within GNOME Software,
> unless part of the "core applications" set, in which case they must NOT be
> removable.

This last bullet seems product specific.  That might be an addendum
per-product, since the "core applications" are going to likely vary.

> Default apps in Fedora Workstation *should*:
>  * Have appdata metadata (soon to be turned into a must).
>  * Have a good reason for being included in the default set, especially if
> not considered part of the core desktop experience by the GNOME upstream.

Uh, I kind of object to this bullet.  This is a Fedora policy/product,
not a GNOME one.  If Fedora sees a non-GNOME application as part of
the core desktop experience, it shouldn't have to justify it based on
what upstream GNOME thinks.

>  * Start in under than 10 seconds (on modern hardware).

That seems difficult to enforce/police.  What happens if an app meets
everything else but then fails to do this?  Do we then yank it out?
Who's going to sit there with a stopwatch and time every app?  I
realize this is a should, but it seems unnecessary.

josh

> An app or launcher that fails to complies with these guidelines MUST NOT be
> included in the default install.
>
> Furthermore, if an app that doesn't follow this policy is include by
> default, it should be considered a Final Release blocker until the app is
> fixed to conform the policy or removed from the default install.
>
> ----
>
> Each line in this policy has a very good reason behind it, and I hope I
> don't have to explain each one of them separately. Following this simple
> policy will ensure a polished and good user experience in viewing, launching
> and installing applications.
>
> Note that I'm being a bit lax on the requirements here. I'd place "launch an
> actual app" in the "must" column but we tried that before and it didn't work
> due to (silly) internal project politics, as people want things like release
> notes have a launcher by default.
>
>
>
> Feel free to reply with your opinion, and put it in the wiki somewhere when
> it's officially approved by the WG (which, to remind all involved parties,
> I'm not an official part of)
>
> -
> -Elad Alfassa.
>
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop