[maemo-developers] Screenshots to user installable GUI packages in extras-testing [was Re: External Repository and HAM]

[From: Attila Csipa]

On Tuesday 09 March 2010 08:27:34 Tim Teulings wrote:
> I think initialy (and hopefully still) extras was not about good or bad
> software, its was about software that does not break your device (and
> does what it told). That is what QA must try to target. Comments about
> usability, spelling mistakes improvements are good (and I personally got
> some good hints by such comments, so I do not want to miss them), but
> that should not avoid applications getting into extras.

Entirely correct. If anyone thumbed you down because of a spelling error 
(barring errors in links) or non-exorbitant usability issues (that would fall 
into the 'does not deliver promised functionality'), IMHO he did it wrong.

> not that clear - so for Nokia is possibly not the only goal to only have
> excellent quality application in extras. As always things are
> complicated ;-)

I took a dive in the wiki and I think the following page is a good read how 
the concept originally developed (most edits on that page by QGil and 
GeneralAntilles)

https://wiki.maemo.org/Extras_repository_process_definition

> Yes, it is wise to have a screenshot, but if the application is not
> downloaded because of a missing screenshot this is a problem for the
> author, but not for Nokia neither for the community 

Considering the long run, I disagree. There is not a set number of apps a user 
will install. So a higher number of well-represented applications benefits 
ALL, the user, the developer, the community, and, in the bottom line, Nokia. 
Yes, the author loses most, but that's beside the point - it won't help a bad 
app, but with a bad representation of a GOOD app nobody won, even those WHO 
COULD HAVE.

To underline - I don't want this to be an extra burden, I want it to be simple 
to do (simpler than now, just as the bugtracker issue) so everybody benefits. 

> ("it does not do any 
> harm to the end user"). Of course we are also interested in a good

Sorry, I still fail to see ANY difference in the 'danger level' of this 
compared to a missing application icon (it 'harms' the user IMHO in 
absolutely the same way - by denying additional information, but does not 
influence the application functionality). 


Regards,
Attila