[Openicc] KDE CMS

[Cyrille Berger]

On Tuesday 29 January 2008, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:
> Am 29.01.08, 18:43 +0100 schrieb Cyrille Berger:
> > First, let me clarify a few things, from the KDE point of view :
> > * consistency with how Gnome settings are displayed is unimportant,
> > seriously the only reason you would want that is to ease transition from
> > KDE to Gnome (or vice-versa), the person doing that will have to learn so
> > many new things that it doesn't matter if the color management dialog is
> > different, like it doesn't matter if Gimp UI is different from Krita or
> > Cinepaint or Photoshop
>
> As long as we speak about CM here we differ in opinions. Users expect
> expectations be meet.
I agree they have expactations on the contents. I am more than skeptical on 
user expectations on the layout.

> > I guess there is something I don't get. I add assumed that the "policy"
> > were some sort of configuration files, are they code plugins ?
>
> The policy setting is exposed in the first Oyranos configuration panels
> tab:
> http://www.oyranos.org/wiki/index.php?title=Oyranos_Configuration_Dialog#Po
>licy
>
> > > Of course the CMS settings can be an icon in SystemSettings only and
> > > come up in a own dialog window.
> >
> > That wouldn't be consistent with the other part of SystemSettings.
>
> So I must assume the other SystemSettings dialogs are embedded?
>
> > > As long as we talk about the UI part, I am still not aware of a problem
> > > as long as Oyranos can decide about the inner logic, like widget
> > > grouping.
> >
> > I don't really understand why is it important that oyranos have impact on
> > UI and widget grouping.
>
> ... in order to create a pattern of user expectations.

So if I understand correctly Policies are affecting the layout of the UI ? I 
had a look at how MacOSX and Photoshop do it, and I haven't really seen a 
notion of "policies" in the dialogs.

> For instance the proofing profile can appear in the "Default Profile"
> section or in the "Proofing Settings". User would expect this to be
> consitent across GUI's.
I am very very skeptical about this. This go against what I can have read 
about usability, items shouldn't jump of sections.

> Sorry but I must always remember the USB case. One device bus and every
> distribution handling USB different. This was unfortune. Luckily it seems
> to be sorted out now. But how many years did this take?
(I am not sure the current situation of USB on linux is any better but...) 
Well, that's the point of this discution, right ? Meet the need of CMM with 
the need of a desktop environnement.

-- 
Cyrille Berger