I disagree on allowing 3rd party resource questions for the "State of the Art" criterion you suggested. These are often just "best practice" questions in disguise, with no clear specification of the problem or what they mean by "best". Moreover, I think todays "State of the Art" is often deprecated next year, and good software engineering questions and answers should be valid for a longer period.
However, there are definitely good questions where askers specify a conceptual, on-topic problem, and it is not inherently clear if solutions should incorporate
a tool-agnostic approach they have to integrate into their current way of working
available tools, libaries or other 3rd party resources
(or a combination of both). These are often questions I would like to keep here.
Frequently, the asker has an idea such a tool or library could exist and makes the "error" of mentioning this idea. Maybe they also mention some of the tools they found, which I think is fine, since it shows some reasearch effort. Unfortunately, this immediately triggers downvotes and close votes.
To be straight - I really dislike this voting behaviour - it shows many voters fail to read and understand questions in full. They use the site like a computer game, where it is the goal to scan a new question as quickly as possible, find buzzwords in it which correlate to the predefined close reasons, and then stop reading and vote for closing:
- "is there a library or tool ..." - somewhere at the end of the question - probably leads to a behaviour like "hey, lets shoot at it with the tool request close reason, regardless how good the former parts are. No further thinking required, great!"
What I even more dislike is, if such questions get downvotes, but no close votes and no comments.
My personal approach here is to ask myself,
- "would the question be on-topic and focussed enough without the 3rd party resource request"?
If yes, I sometimes try to edit those 3rd-party request out, to make "this buzzword-triggered voting" less likely.
I would be really happy
if that would not be necessary, because it takes time I could invest into better things,
if others with enough rep for editing questions would follow my example.
I currently see no better solution. I don't think we should weaken the rules in general, and deciding if a "3rd party request" in a question is a clear rule violation, or only a minor, unimportant issue, is definitely to some degree opinionated. Moreover, we cannot educate the community here to change their behaviour how the read and reflect questions, that's just a tilt against windmills.
Or if they try to avoid mentioning names, where it falls into "Asking for recommendations".
"Asking for recommendations" - for a clearly specified problem - is and was never a close reason, and I don't think the community treats it that way. "Asking for (a list of) recommendations" should stay a close reason, these kind of questions are almost always too broad. And "Asking for 3rd party resource recommendations" should IMHO stay a close reason as well - when this is the primary focus of the question. Our site is not a replacement for Google.
To your example
Windows based user interfaces that use vector graphics
This question may fall indeed into my initial category of 3rd party resource questions, where it is not clear to the askers if a programming approach is required, or if there is an existing framework for the job. However, the problem I see here is, the OP did not show any research effort. Someone wo claims that they actively use Winforms should already know the canonical alternative WPF, and could have easily informed themselves that it solves exactly the problems mentioned in the question.