Hi, On 4/16/07, Łukasz 'Sil2100' Zemczak <sil2100@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > Since we won't have something like SoftwareValet I see no need to > support the legacy DB format. Just do whatever is easier and doesn't > fill the home folder with log files (they should probably go into that > packages folder). I feel the same. To be honest, I also thought about simply using flattened BMessages for this. That way, third party apps which would need data about installed applications wouldn't have to bother with parsing the format by themselves. It's not like anyone would want to bother looking up this data by using a text viewer anyway.
BMessage is fine.
> Cool. Now, that was a fast usability discussion, wasn't it? :) > Regarding usability experience: it's a topic full of controversy and > usability experts often disagree about the details. It depends on > which philosophy you want to follow (explore vs > just-works,don't-care). I think your suggested UI fixed the greatest > flaw (the files pop-up) and that's really what counts the most. The > rest was mostly a question of design philosophy (IMHO, "explore" is > better for games, not apps). I agree, this is just a matter of the preferred philosophy. But that's what discussions are really for, right? In life compromises are also very important. Not to mention that this very compromise is not as bad as it seems (from my POV) ;)
Indeed, using a PackageInspector isn't such a bad compromise. ;)
> I just like to have it explicit and I think it would be more > consistent with our HIG (which says to use explicit actions instead of > "OK", etc. which depend on the context). What about if we'll try both of them in action and decide which to choose afterwards? This is the good thing in minor details.
Good idea. I'm not 100% sure about this particular case, either. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald