Talk:List of recommended OS X software

Still todo:

• More illustrations
• Add additional window management applications

Discussion:

Note to WubTheCaptain:

Moving the Contents to the right doesn't make the page more comprehensible (or more "effective"), it rather seems contraintuitive and impractical. It takes the focus away from the Contents once you enter the page, as well as screwing with the image placement. A (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just... what?

Do you HONESTLY believe package managers, terminals, and even text editors are subcategories of the 'coding' (oh my god, that fucking word) category?

— Galactus (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Fair enough, that change was shit. I took the word 'Coding' from the GNU/Linux list. I cross-referenced the rec pages, and tried to follow the same format.

Apart from that, the general form is much improved. The Utilities category needs work, and icons need to be added (I removed them temporarily because it was messy - I was working on added the whole page with icons).

Let's work this out. I'll grant you the Coding section, but otherwise I thought it was better.

http://s11.postimg.org/dj5e71a83/2016_03_12_at_14_23_38.png
— Avocado (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2016 (EST)

I didn't mind your other changes, but the 'coding' section triggered me, especially since package managers have got nothing to do with programming. — Galactus (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2016 (EST)

I'll admit that I don't know much about programming, so I lumped them in together hoping they were compatible. I'm going to revert the changes then but fix the mistake. I invite people to improve upon the general form of the page. I'm making sweeping changes because how it was before was all over the place.

Avocado (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Badges

How about adding small badges to the side indicating some important qualities about the app? Potential badges: Gratis; Open-source; Low file-size; Lightweight; Customisation; Nice looking; Actively developed; OS Compatibility. Why? It saves having to express this in the description, and leaves it open for just talk about the app's purpose. Currently, the description starts with a mandatory statement saying "Open-source, $9.99", or whatever. It would be easier to express and nicer to look at to have a badge telling you if it's free or not. If a criticism is - too meticulous a job to add badges to the side of every app, I disagree because the wiki is updated infrequently, and icons for each app are painstakenly added. If a criticism is - who needs to know if an app is nice looking, then that badge doesn't have to be an option.

What do you think? I made a few makeshift badges and showcase them below. The art board can be hired to make some nicer-looking badges.

I like the idea of indicating when applications are gratis and/or libre and/or open source. However, I think that subjective criteria does not fill the bill here. So indicating whether an application is "nice looking" sounds like a bad idea to me. If you want to show what a particular application looks like, then upload a screenshot and have it displayed in the right margin of the page directly across from the relevant entry.

^Sign your stuff.

As for the comment, it's hardly subjective to indicate whether or not a given piece of software is gratis and open source. It's quite useful and doesn't promote any agenda. — Galactus (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

Example

• Beanis a small, easy-to-use word processor that is designed to make writing convenient, efficient and comfortable.

It looks quite nice. Do it. — Galactus (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2017 (EDT)