Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Emmanuel Briot wrote: >> Actually, I meant to do that too, but must have forgotten. >> I agree, we should only show bindings up to the version we support >> perhaps (is that 2.6 or 2.8? I can't remember). >> >> This list is not updated by anyone except us though. The problem is >> that it will definitely become out of date unless someone actively >> checks up on all bindings. That is probably also why the bindings on >> there are mostly out of date for a lot of languages. >> > > Speaking as one of the maintainers for the Ada binding, it is > up-to-date for gtk+ 2.8, and partially for 2.10. Should I > convey this information by some other means to maintainers ? > Fixed! Please let me know if there are any other bindings that have the wrong status (or just fix it directly in svn for those who have a gnome svn account). - Andreas ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Cody Russell wrote: > While you guys are talking about website stuff again, on a side note I > want to mention the information about IRC stuff on the webpage: > > http://www.gtk.org/development.html > > This page mentions #gtk-devel as a place where team meetings occur, but > there has been a lot of traffic to this channel recently by people > looking for help with general gtk+ stuff. > > I wasn't sure where to file a 'bug' about this, so I posted to Bugzilla > here: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523725 > > Today Kris gave me ops so I could at least change the /topic to point > people to #gtk+ but we really should make some mention of #gtk+ on the > webpage somewhere so that people just know the right place to go from > the beginning. > > Can I commit this patch to gtk-web, or should it be changed some first, > or should I just let you guys take care of it? Certainly, go ahead! Thanks for the patch :) -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
While you guys are talking about website stuff again, on a side note I want to mention the information about IRC stuff on the webpage: http://www.gtk.org/development.html This page mentions #gtk-devel as a place where team meetings occur, but there has been a lot of traffic to this channel recently by people looking for help with general gtk+ stuff. I wasn't sure where to file a 'bug' about this, so I posted to Bugzilla here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523725 Today Kris gave me ops so I could at least change the /topic to point people to #gtk+ but we really should make some mention of #gtk+ on the webpage somewhere so that people just know the right place to go from the beginning. Can I commit this patch to gtk-web, or should it be changed some first, or should I just let you guys take care of it? / Cody ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Murray Cumming wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 15:44 +0100, Emmanuel Briot wrote: > >>> Actually, I meant to do that too, but must have forgotten. >>> I agree, we should only show bindings up to the version we support >>> perhaps (is that 2.6 or 2.8? I can't remember). >>> >>> This list is not updated by anyone except us though. The problem is >>> that it will definitely become out of date unless someone actively >>> checks up on all bindings. That is probably also why the bindings on >>> there are mostly out of date for a lot of languages. >>> >> Speaking as one of the maintainers for the Ada binding, it is >> up-to-date for gtk+ 2.8, and partially for 2.10. Should I >> convey this information by some other means to maintainers ? >> > > As I said before in this thread, the page used to have a sentence > suggesting that you tell the language-bindings list about new or changed > information. I then made those changes every few weeks. That allowed the > page to be as correct as the bindings authors wanted it to be. But > maintainership of this page has apparently been taken away from me. > Hi Murray! I didn't know I stole gtk.org editorship from anyone (I just fix stuff here and there), but I'm unaware of any kind of technical limit to how many people can edit the page. When I do changes I just fix it in svn, doesn't this work for you? *cough*, sorry for that last part. There is no policy (that I know of, but I'm new to this list) on who can and who cannot change stuff on the page. I think what Martyn meant was that he could fix it for you, but that it would take a bit of time before he would get around to it. You are totally free to change stuff yourself though. As long as we have a general agreement on what goes on the pages and not. - Andreas ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Alberto Ruiz wrote: > 2008/3/26, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Alberto Ruiz wrote: >>> 2008/3/26, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi Murray, I have to say, first and foremost, I agree with Micke. The language bindings are about other languages which are available for use with GTK+. This is not GNOME. I really think having a small GNOME foot (or another icon) for indication purposes in another column is sufficient for this. I think it is a mistake to make the point of showing certain bindings as "first class" bindings purely because they are supported by GNOME. >>> Still, we need a way to tell people that some bindings are better than >>> others: >>> >>> I would suggest to remove any bindings not supported since 2.6 from the >> main >>> list, that would pretty much leave the actively maintained and most >> popular >>> Gtk+ bindings on the list (most of those are already on the GNOME >> binding >>> set btw). Then we can promote the most popular bindings to the highest >>> places. >>> >>> Does this makes sense? >> >> Actually, I meant to do that too, but must have forgotten. >> I agree, we should only show bindings up to the version we support >> perhaps (is that 2.6 or 2.8? I can't remember). >> >> This list is not updated by anyone except us though. The problem is that >> it will definitely become out of date unless someone actively checks up >> on all bindings. That is probably also why the bindings on there are >> mostly out of date for a lot of languages. > > > > I volunteer myself to do some sort of binding review as long as I can get > access to update the page. (For example, the Ada bindings supports > 2.10already). Great! Should just be a case of: $ svn co svn+ssh://@svn.gnome.org/svn/gtk-web/trunk ... Then update the page, then: $ svn commit -m "Updated foo binding information". Anyone with access to SVN can do it. The commit is not instant, the pages are rsyncd so there is a short delay - which is great if you cock things up :) The delay is about 15 minutes I think. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 15:44 +0100, Emmanuel Briot wrote: > > Actually, I meant to do that too, but must have forgotten. > > I agree, we should only show bindings up to the version we support > > perhaps (is that 2.6 or 2.8? I can't remember). > > > > This list is not updated by anyone except us though. The problem is > > that it will definitely become out of date unless someone actively > > checks up on all bindings. That is probably also why the bindings on > > there are mostly out of date for a lot of languages. > > Speaking as one of the maintainers for the Ada binding, it is > up-to-date for gtk+ 2.8, and partially for 2.10. Should I > convey this information by some other means to maintainers ? As I said before in this thread, the page used to have a sentence suggesting that you tell the language-bindings list about new or changed information. I then made those changes every few weeks. That allowed the page to be as correct as the bindings authors wanted it to be. But maintainership of this page has apparently been taken away from me. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
> Actually, I meant to do that too, but must have forgotten. > I agree, we should only show bindings up to the version we support > perhaps (is that 2.6 or 2.8? I can't remember). > > This list is not updated by anyone except us though. The problem is > that it will definitely become out of date unless someone actively > checks up on all bindings. That is probably also why the bindings on > there are mostly out of date for a lot of languages. Speaking as one of the maintainers for the Ada binding, it is up-to-date for gtk+ 2.8, and partially for 2.10. Should I convey this information by some other means to maintainers ? thanks in advance Emmanuel ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
2008/3/26, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Alberto Ruiz wrote: > > 2008/3/26, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> Hi Murray, > >> > >> I have to say, first and foremost, I agree with Micke. The language > >> bindings are about other languages which are available for use with > >> GTK+. This is not GNOME. I really think having a small GNOME foot (or > >> another icon) for indication purposes in another column is sufficient > >> for this. I think it is a mistake to make the point of showing certain > >> bindings as "first class" bindings purely because they are supported by > >> GNOME. > >> > > > > Still, we need a way to tell people that some bindings are better than > > others: > > > > I would suggest to remove any bindings not supported since 2.6 from the > main > > list, that would pretty much leave the actively maintained and most > popular > > Gtk+ bindings on the list (most of those are already on the GNOME > binding > > set btw). Then we can promote the most popular bindings to the highest > > places. > > > > Does this makes sense? > > > Actually, I meant to do that too, but must have forgotten. > I agree, we should only show bindings up to the version we support > perhaps (is that 2.6 or 2.8? I can't remember). > > This list is not updated by anyone except us though. The problem is that > it will definitely become out of date unless someone actively checks up > on all bindings. That is probably also why the bindings on there are > mostly out of date for a lot of languages. I volunteer myself to do some sort of binding review as long as I can get access to update the page. (For example, the Ada bindings supports 2.10already). -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Alberto Ruiz wrote: > 2008/3/26, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> Hi Murray, >> >> I have to say, first and foremost, I agree with Micke. The language >> bindings are about other languages which are available for use with >> GTK+. This is not GNOME. I really think having a small GNOME foot (or >> another icon) for indication purposes in another column is sufficient >> for this. I think it is a mistake to make the point of showing certain >> bindings as "first class" bindings purely because they are supported by >> GNOME. >> > > Still, we need a way to tell people that some bindings are better than > others: > > I would suggest to remove any bindings not supported since 2.6 from the main > list, that would pretty much leave the actively maintained and most popular > Gtk+ bindings on the list (most of those are already on the GNOME binding > set btw). Then we can promote the most popular bindings to the highest > places. > > Does this makes sense? Actually, I meant to do that too, but must have forgotten. I agree, we should only show bindings up to the version we support perhaps (is that 2.6 or 2.8? I can't remember). This list is not updated by anyone except us though. The problem is that it will definitely become out of date unless someone actively checks up on all bindings. That is probably also why the bindings on there are mostly out of date for a lot of languages. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
2008/3/26, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hi Murray, > > I have to say, first and foremost, I agree with Micke. The language > bindings are about other languages which are available for use with > GTK+. This is not GNOME. I really think having a small GNOME foot (or > another icon) for indication purposes in another column is sufficient > for this. I think it is a mistake to make the point of showing certain > bindings as "first class" bindings purely because they are supported by > GNOME. > Still, we need a way to tell people that some bindings are better than others: I would suggest to remove any bindings not supported since 2.6 from the main list, that would pretty much leave the actively maintained and most popular Gtk+ bindings on the list (most of those are already on the GNOME binding set btw). Then we can promote the most popular bindings to the highest places. Does this makes sense? -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Murray Cumming wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:26 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +, Martyn Russell wrote: >>> We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or two and >>> we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we will >>> be getting to it soon. > > This still hasn't happened and it's still infuriating me that the page > was broken. Why can't I just fix this page as I used to keep it > maintained before? Hi Murray, I have to say, first and foremost, I agree with Micke. The language bindings are about other languages which are available for use with GTK+. This is not GNOME. I really think having a small GNOME foot (or another icon) for indication purposes in another column is sufficient for this. I think it is a mistake to make the point of showing certain bindings as "first class" bindings purely because they are supported by GNOME. As for why this hasn't happened yet, the reason is quite simply, I am doing this in my spare time and have been busy. I am sorry I have not got round to fixing this sooner. We have actually moved the bindings to a new page and we now mention them in 3 places (main page, features page and development page). So we are getting there. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 11:35 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote: > 26 mar 2008 kl. 11.10 skrev Murray Cumming: > > Hi, > > > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:18 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote: > >> 25 mar 2008 kl. 08.58 skrev Murray Cumming: > >> but it's not given and GTK+ is not only for GNOME. The GNOME > >> bindings include (and require) a wider set of library bindings than > >> GTK > >> + bindings. > > > > You're saying it's a disadvantage that bindings for other libraries > > are > > available too. > > No, I'm saying that the fact that a binding doesn't include certain > GNOME libraries or follow GNOME release schedule shouldn't move it to > some secondary citizen table for GTK+ which is used widely outside of > GNOME. > > For example the C# bindings are not on the GNOME bindings page, Yes, they are. > even > though it is one of the most used and high quality bindings for GTK+. > > Best Regards, >Mikael Hallendal -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
26 mar 2008 kl. 11.10 skrev Murray Cumming: Hi, > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:18 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote: >> 25 mar 2008 kl. 08.58 skrev Murray Cumming: >> but it's not given and GTK+ is not only for GNOME. The GNOME >> bindings include (and require) a wider set of library bindings than >> GTK >> + bindings. > > You're saying it's a disadvantage that bindings for other libraries > are > available too. No, I'm saying that the fact that a binding doesn't include certain GNOME libraries or follow GNOME release schedule shouldn't move it to some secondary citizen table for GTK+ which is used widely outside of GNOME. For example the C# bindings are not on the GNOME bindings page, even though it is one of the most used and high quality bindings for GTK+. Best Regards, Mikael Hallendal -- Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:18 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote: > 25 mar 2008 kl. 08.58 skrev Murray Cumming: > > Hi, > > > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:26 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > >> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +, Martyn Russell wrote: > >>> Murray Cumming wrote: > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to > > be in > > a > > separate section. > > I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this > regression. I've mentioned it before too. > >>> > >>> Hi Murray, > >>> > >>> We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or > >>> two and > >>> we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we > >>> will > >>> be getting to it soon. > > > > This still hasn't happened and it's still infuriating me that the page > > was broken. Why can't I just fix this page as I used to keep it > > maintained before? > > Just a -1 from me regarding splitting out the official GNOME bindings. > > I agree that in most cases the quality for only GTK+ is better in > these They clearly are and there's no other way to measure their quality, and no other team of people who are monitoring them, and no other schedule that you can ask them to follow to ensure their quality in future. > but it's not given and GTK+ is not only for GNOME. The GNOME > bindings include (and require) a wider set of library bindings than GTK > + bindings. You're saying it's a disadvantage that bindings for other libraries are available too. Really, I give up. > If you want to split the tables up, I suggest that the split is on up > to date bindings rather than whether they are in the GNOME bindings > package. But then again, that is pretty easy to see already. > > Maybe just put a little marker on the bindings that are "official" > GNOME bindings? > > > C++ [1] > C# > Perl [1] > ... > > [1] Included in the official GNOME bindings. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
25 mar 2008 kl. 08.58 skrev Murray Cumming: Hi, > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:26 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +, Martyn Russell wrote: >>> Murray Cumming wrote: On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to > be in > a > separate section. I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this regression. I've mentioned it before too. >>> >>> Hi Murray, >>> >>> We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or >>> two and >>> we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we >>> will >>> be getting to it soon. > > This still hasn't happened and it's still infuriating me that the page > was broken. Why can't I just fix this page as I used to keep it > maintained before? Just a -1 from me regarding splitting out the official GNOME bindings. I agree that in most cases the quality for only GTK+ is better in these but it's not given and GTK+ is not only for GNOME. The GNOME bindings include (and require) a wider set of library bindings than GTK + bindings. If you want to split the tables up, I suggest that the split is on up to date bindings rather than whether they are in the GNOME bindings package. But then again, that is pretty easy to see already. Maybe just put a little marker on the bindings that are "official" GNOME bindings? C++ [1] C# Perl [1] ... [1] Included in the official GNOME bindings. Cheers, Mikael Hallendal -- Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:26 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +, Martyn Russell wrote: > > Murray Cumming wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > >> And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to be in > > >> a > > >> separate section. > > > > > > I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this > > > regression. I've mentioned it before too. > > > > Hi Murray, > > > > We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or two and > > we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we will > > be getting to it soon. This still hasn't happened and it's still infuriating me that the page was broken. Why can't I just fix this page as I used to keep it maintained before? > > Currently I am contemplating: > > > > 1. Removing the whole table and linking to the GNOME bindings page > > instead which I think jdahlin suggest to me. > > > > 2. Removing anything older than (including) 2.8 which is no longer > > supported I think. If we do this then there is little point in having > > half the languages on there since the data we have shows most are only > > partially supported up to 2.4. > > But the data we have is probably out-of-date and will never be regularly > up-to-date. If you just remove them then there's no easy way for people > to find them. The original page had text about how the information is > self-reported and therefore not that reliable. > > > Currently the bindings link is broken since it has changed since > > starting the pages. I guess we should link to > > > > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyone/Bindings > > That's really just for release management. I don't think it would be > wise to make that the only list of our supported bindings. The existing > page worked fairly well. > > > This link will have to be kept up to date, if this is the link to use, > > it would be better to have a more permanent link that doesn't change > > with new versions of GNOME (which we used to have). > > Theoretically, > http://www.gnome.org/start/unstable/Bindings > should do that but it doesn't seem to work for sub-pages. > > > 3. Putting the language bindings on a separate page (if we keep the > > table of course). > > > > This any a bunch of other things we have had requested will be processed > > in due course :) > > OK. Thanks. > -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Nice! Having SVG allows to produce nearly all other formats so that's OK. One possible addition could be some icon sized PNGs (tweaked for small size). If I have some time I'll try make them and post them on l.g.o. Christophe On Jan 30, 2008 1:11 PM, Andreas Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Nilsson wrote: > > Christophe Dehais wrote: > > > >> Talking about the logo (which is very nice - simple and cool, like gtk > >> :)), what about a page where one's could get it in different formats > >> (svg, png, icon sized, etc.) ? > >> > >> > > Hi Christophe! > > Sounds like something that should probably go into the gnome wiki. > > I'll upload it later today. > > - Andreas > http://live.gnome.org/GTKLogo > Shout if you need any other formats. :) > - Andreas > > ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:26:33PM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > This link will have to be kept up to date, if this is the link to use, > > it would be better to have a more permanent link that doesn't change > > with new versions of GNOME (which we used to have). > > Theoretically, > http://www.gnome.org/start/unstable/Bindings > should do that but it doesn't seem to work for sub-pages. That should work in ~15min. (gnomeweb-wml/trunk/www.gnome.org/htaccess) -- Regards, Olav ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Murray Cumming wrote: > > what is most unfortunate is that library.g.o only has glib development > > docs, but not gtk development docs. > > That's probably because there are no tarball releases of GTK+ from svn > trunk at the moment. library.gnome.org can only use tarballs, I believe. That is the main issue; the other one would be this version wouldn't be in any GNOME module set as published by the release team but this is easy to work around. Frederic ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +, Martyn Russell wrote: > Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > >> And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to be in > >> a > >> separate section. > > > > I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this > > regression. I've mentioned it before too. > > Hi Murray, > > We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or two and > we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we will > be getting to it soon. > > Currently I am contemplating: > > 1. Removing the whole table and linking to the GNOME bindings page > instead which I think jdahlin suggest to me. > > 2. Removing anything older than (including) 2.8 which is no longer > supported I think. If we do this then there is little point in having > half the languages on there since the data we have shows most are only > partially supported up to 2.4. But the data we have is probably out-of-date and will never be regularly up-to-date. If you just remove them then there's no easy way for people to find them. The original page had text about how the information is self-reported and therefore not that reliable. > Currently the bindings link is broken since it has changed since > starting the pages. I guess we should link to > > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyone/Bindings That's really just for release management. I don't think it would be wise to make that the only list of our supported bindings. The existing page worked fairly well. > This link will have to be kept up to date, if this is the link to use, > it would be better to have a more permanent link that doesn't change > with new versions of GNOME (which we used to have). Theoretically, http://www.gnome.org/start/unstable/Bindings should do that but it doesn't seem to work for sub-pages. > 3. Putting the language bindings on a separate page (if we keep the > table of course). > > This any a bunch of other things we have had requested will be processed > in due course :) OK. Thanks. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Murray Cumming wrote: > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: >> And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to be in >> a >> separate section. > > I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this > regression. I've mentioned it before too. Hi Murray, We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or two and we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we will be getting to it soon. Currently I am contemplating: 1. Removing the whole table and linking to the GNOME bindings page instead which I think jdahlin suggest to me. 2. Removing anything older than (including) 2.8 which is no longer supported I think. If we do this then there is little point in having half the languages on there since the data we have shows most are only partially supported up to 2.4. Currently the bindings link is broken since it has changed since starting the pages. I guess we should link to http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyone/Bindings This link will have to be kept up to date, if this is the link to use, it would be better to have a more permanent link that doesn't change with new versions of GNOME (which we used to have). 3. Putting the language bindings on a separate page (if we keep the table of course). This any a bunch of other things we have had requested will be processed in due course :) -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to be in > a > separate section. I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this regression. I've mentioned it before too. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Andreas Nilsson wrote: > Christophe Dehais wrote: > >> Talking about the logo (which is very nice - simple and cool, like gtk >> :)), what about a page where one's could get it in different formats >> (svg, png, icon sized, etc.) ? >> >> > Hi Christophe! > Sounds like something that should probably go into the gnome wiki. > I'll upload it later today. > - Andreas http://live.gnome.org/GTKLogo Shout if you need any other formats. :) - Andreas ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Claudio Saavedra wrote: > El dom, 27-01-2008 a las 23:37 +, Martyn Russell escribió: >> The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has >> any issues to take up before then, let me know. > > A small correction. In documentation.html > > "GTK+ 2.0 Tree View > This tutorial covers the GtkTreeView and was written by Vijay Kumar B." > > The linked tutorial is actually about GtkTextView. Great and well spotted, thanks. This fix has been committed. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
El dom, 27-01-2008 a las 23:37 +, Martyn Russell escribió: > > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has > any issues to take up before then, let me know. A small correction. In documentation.html "GTK+ 2.0 Tree View This tutorial covers the GtkTreeView and was written by Vijay Kumar B." The linked tutorial is actually about GtkTextView. Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Shawn Amundson wrote: > Martyn Russell wrote: >> no sysadmins seems to be stepping forward regarding this. >> >> As a result, this will have to wait. >> > > I'm willing to do whatever it takes to help improve gtk.org. As > such, I will provide my services as sysadmin. thanks, that's much apprechiated, especially as the hardware/space situation on gtk.org is becoming worse and worse (we're aware of HW resource shortages for probably 3 years now, and they have been increasing). > I think a CMS is an excellent idea. Are there any opinions on > what would be the best solution? How about drupal? i think we should approach this incrementally. i.e. it's probably best to: 1) get the new web design in place that Andreas and Martyn have been working on. 2) setup a cloned web site on cube. (i'll drop you a line when i have time to look into replicating the web installation setup there.) 3) switch over DNS. 4) look into any future extensions like CMSes. (currently we're fine with using live.gnome.org, so we don't have any urgent issues to fix here.) > Mid-march will be gtk.org's 10th birthday! ;-) > -Shawn --- ciaoTJ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 15:46 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: [snip] > what is most unfortunate is that library.g.o only has glib development > docs, but not gtk development docs. That's probably because there are no tarball releases of GTK+ from svn trunk at the moment. library.gnome.org can only use tarballs, I believe. > having development docs readily > available is fairly important to talk about new stuff and get reviewers > interest. (building those can easily be automated via buildign the > gtk+.module jhbuild module.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:30:14PM +, Martyn Russell wrote: >>> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/download-linux.html >>> * outdated versions >> >> You disagree? It might not make sense to list unsupported versions here >> I agree, but we should definitely list older versions. > > No, I mean that it doesn't show e.g. 2.12. Don't mind about older > versions. > >>> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation.html >>> * under API, perhaps s/Library/Component/ or something? >> >> I prefer Library, since they are libraries. > > Shouldn't Library be used for the collection of API docs? IMO gtk+ has > e.g. an API reference. The combination of all that stuff could be called > a library. gtk.org already links to library.g.o for API docs, it also redirects faq and tutorial2.0 accesses to library.g.o now. we still have a static version of the tutorial1.2 there though, because it's not provided by library.g.o. what is most unfortunate is that library.g.o only has glib development docs, but not gtk development docs. having development docs readily available is fairly important to talk about new stuff and get reviewers interest. (building those can easily be automated via buildign the gtk+.module jhbuild module.) > -- > Regards, > Olav --- ciaoTJ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Michael L Torrie (sorta) wrote: > I'm always amused by people who have big, hires screens and want to > maximize windows. In my opinion, on a 20" wide screen, I want > layouts to be narrow enough to be in a nice tall window that's narrow > enough to allow easy reading. It's funny that you use the phrases "I want" and "In my opinion," and then go on to assert that opinion as fact: > Letting the text spread out wide is not readable. If you had appended to that the following: "... for me, although others may have different preferences and abilities and may find wide text rows perfectly easy -- and preferable -- to read." ... then, your statements would have made sense. Why people still design based on a single fixed width for the browser window is beyond me (aside from simple laziness, with which I can sympathize). -brian ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Philippe De Swert wrote: > What annoys me the most (especially on my wide-screen monitor) is that I have > a very thin GTK+ website which requires me to scroll down a lot. And I don't > like to have to view a website in 10:16 screen as it is quite unpractical. It > is pretty hard to swivel a 22" screen that way. Also on my laptop monitor > (which is a 4:3 high resolution screen) it makes for annoying reading. Could > you make sure the site expands sideways to accomodate for the screen? Not many > people still look on 800 pixel wide screens. I'm always amused by people who have big, hires screens and want to maximize windows. In my opinion, on a 20" wide screen, I want layouts to be narrow enough to be in a nice tall window that's narrow enough to allow easy reading. Now of course a fixed width design should be based on ems, not pixels (sadly this layout is not based on ems, which is a problem). That way you can enlarge the font and see the entire layout expand for easier reading. Letting the text spread out wide is not readable. > > Thanks, > > Philippe > --- > Scarlet One, ADSL 6 Mbps + Telephone, from EUR 29,95... > http://www.scarlet.be/ > > ___ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > -- Michael Torrie Assistant CSR, System Administrator Chemistry and Biochemistry Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 +1.801.422.5771 ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:30:14PM +, Martyn Russell wrote: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/download-linux.html > > * outdated versions > > You disagree? It might not make sense to list unsupported versions here > I agree, but we should definitely list older versions. No, I mean that it doesn't show e.g. 2.12. Don't mind about older versions. > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation.html > > * under API, perhaps s/Library/Component/ or something? > > I prefer Library, since they are libraries. Shouldn't Library be used for the collection of API docs? IMO gtk+ has e.g. an API reference. The combination of all that stuff could be called a library. > > * links to: > >http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html > >with a mention of gtk 1.2 docs. I'd assume to get API docs, but those > >aren't there. > > No, it isn't supported any longer. But documentation.html says 'Although we recommend the GTK2 platform, we keep the GTK 1.2 Documentation around for those who need it.', so I expect API docs. Maybe reword previous sentence? Perhaps mention it is included in the 1.2 tarball? > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/mailing-lists.html > > * perhaps add 'language-bindings' ? > > Hmm, wasn't sure about this, since it is more GNOME language bindings. > I can add it though. Wasn't sure (description says GNOME and GTK+). Leaving to you to decide ;-) > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/development.html > > * links to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for donation things, shouldn't > >that rather use some private email address? IIRC there is a > >better one. perhaps also mention that although it is the GNOME > >foundation, the money will be dedicated to GTK+ (there is such an > >arrangement right?) > > I added some more about how it is for GNOME, etc. > What is the alternate email address then? Anyone know? I guess fundraising at gnome org, taken from http://www.gnome.org/friends/ cc'ing vuntz to confirm. -- Regards, Olav ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Vincent Untz wrote: > Le lundi 28 janvier 2008, à 01:25 +0100, Andreas Nilsson a écrit : >> Olav Vitters wrote: >>> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/development.html >>> * links to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for donation things, shouldn't >>>that rather use some private email address? IIRC there is a >>>better one. perhaps also mention that although it is the GNOME >>>foundation, the money will be dedicated to GTK+ (there is such an >>>arrangement right?) >>> >> What address is that? > > I guess it's [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it really that address? or is it a guess? :) -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Olav Vitters wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:37:47PM +, Martyn Russell wrote: > Looks great. Tried to find very small things to note (nothing important): > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/index.html > * LGPL link is the v3 one Fixed. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/features.html > * no n810 Added. > * 'Partially Supported' image looks like a negative (not supported) It is the same way we show things in the toolkit with GtkCheckButtons. > * cross platform should include BSD etc as well Well, we have changed it to include Unix. That should cover all cases. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/overview.html > * perhaps mention LGPL version? Fixed. > * languages could link to languages overview page Fixed. > * community section talks about 2.10 while 2.12 is out Shows how long I have been doing this :) Fixed. > * community has 'These people are listed below.', don't see them Fixed. > * community: have a link to the release announcement I changed this to not point to any announcement, otherwise it will need constantly keeping up to date. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/download-linux.html > * outdated versions You disagree? It might not make sense to list unsupported versions here I agree, but we should definitely list older versions. > * really linux? Changed to "GNU/Linux & Unix". > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation.html > * under API, perhaps s/Library/Component/ or something? I prefer Library, since they are libraries. > * links to: >http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html >with a mention of gtk 1.2 docs. I'd assume to get API docs, but those >aren't there. No, it isn't supported any longer. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html > * links to http://imendio.com/tutorial1.2/, which seems to be down or > something. This will be resolved when we migrate to gtk.org, since it is still on there. I am thinking about removing this though. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/mailing-lists.html > * perhaps add 'language-bindings' ? Hmm, wasn't sure about this, since it is more GNOME language bindings. I can add it though. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/development.html > * links to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for donation things, shouldn't >that rather use some private email address? IIRC there is a >better one. perhaps also mention that although it is the GNOME >foundation, the money will be dedicated to GTK+ (there is such an >arrangement right?) I added some more about how it is for GNOME, etc. What is the alternate email address then? Anyone know? -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Christophe Dehais wrote: > Hi ! > > On Jan 28, 2008 10:48 AM, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> Logo: fresh look, I like it. However, it looks slightly distorted to me, >>> if it is supposed to resemble a perfect cube. As you know, all parallel >>> lines in a perspective projection share a common vanishing point. This >>> seems not to be the case particularly in the upper and lower edges of >>> the green front face and the corresponding edges in the back. Also, you >>> might want to consider to make the 'invisible' edges not as heavy as the >>> others; I suggest to have a little of the face colour mixed in them to >>> give them a shine-through appearance. >>> >> Thanks for your thoughts, but ultimately, it is just a logo and I think >> it looks great ;) >> >> > > Talking about the logo (which is very nice - simple and cool, like gtk > :)), what about a page where one's could get it in different formats > (svg, png, icon sized, etc.) ? > Hi Christophe! Sounds like something that should probably go into the gnome wiki. I'll upload it later today. - Andreas ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Philippe De Swert wrote: >> The new site look great. A few nit picks: >> >> features.html >> * Language Bindings >> Missing 2.12 column which should contain: gtkmm, pygtk, java-gnome, gtk2perl. >> * Foundations >> Missing new features from GIO and also GObject What about GModule, GFoo, GBar, GWhatEverNext :) These shouldn't be listed here. They mean nothing to someone trying to understand the bigger picture when reading that blurb. >> * Accommodating >> For consistency, Localisation->Localization, apply american english grammar >> to the whole site perhaps? Thanks. > And I support using UK English, so let us start a flamewar on this :-) I am British, and there won't be a flame war ;) > What annoys me the most (especially on my wide-screen monitor) is that I have > a very thin GTK+ website which requires me to scroll down a lot. And I don't > like to have to view a website in 10:16 screen as it is quite unpractical. It > is pretty hard to swivel a 22" screen that way. Also on my laptop monitor > (which is a 4:3 high resolution screen) it makes for annoying reading. Could > you make sure the site expands sideways to accomodate for the screen? Not many > people still look on 800 pixel wide screens. Well, imagine how it looks on my 30" monitor with 2560x1600 resolution :) but the point is it works everywhere, even on the Nokia device. You will never fit everyone's needs when it comes to web design - that is front and foremost what I have learned through doing this. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Hi, > > > > The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > > from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > > > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ Nice work! > > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > > issues to take up before then, let me know. > > > > The new site look great. A few nit picks: > > features.html > * Language Bindings > Missing 2.12 column which should contain: gtkmm, pygtk, java-gnome, gtk2perl. > * Foundations > Missing new features from GIO and also GObject > * Accommodating > For consistency, Localisation->Localization, apply american english grammar > to the whole site perhaps? And I support using UK English, so let us start a flamewar on this :-) > documentation.html > * Documentation > Missing GIO What annoys me the most (especially on my wide-screen monitor) is that I have a very thin GTK+ website which requires me to scroll down a lot. And I don't like to have to view a website in 10:16 screen as it is quite unpractical. It is pretty hard to swivel a 22" screen that way. Also on my laptop monitor (which is a 4:3 high resolution screen) it makes for annoying reading. Could you make sure the site expands sideways to accomodate for the screen? Not many people still look on 800 pixel wide screens. Thanks, Philippe --- Scarlet One, ADSL 6 Mbps + Telephone, from EUR 29,95... http://www.scarlet.be/ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 09:26 -0200, Johan Dahlin wrote: > Martyn Russell wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > > from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > > > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ > > > > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > > issues to take up before then, let me know. > > > > The new site look great. A few nit picks: > > features.html > * Language Bindings > Missing 2.12 column which should contain: gtkmm, pygtk, java-gnome, gtk2perl. And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to be in a separate section. Otherwise, the site is looking great. > * Foundations > Missing new features from GIO and also GObject > * Accommodating > For consistency, Localisation->Localization, apply american english grammar > to the whole site perhaps? > > documentation.html > * Documentation > Missing GIO > > Footer: Copyright 2007-2008? > > Johan > ___ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Martyn Russell wrote: > Hi, > > The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ > > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > issues to take up before then, let me know. > The new site look great. A few nit picks: features.html * Language Bindings Missing 2.12 column which should contain: gtkmm, pygtk, java-gnome, gtk2perl. * Foundations Missing new features from GIO and also GObject * Accommodating For consistency, Localisation->Localization, apply american english grammar to the whole site perhaps? documentation.html * Documentation Missing GIO Footer: Copyright 2007-2008? Johan ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
28 jan 2008 kl. 10.48 skrev Martyn Russell: Hi, > Bastiaan Veelo wrote: > >> Logo: fresh look, I like it. However, it looks slightly distorted >> to me, >> if it is supposed to resemble a perfect cube. As you know, all >> parallel >> lines in a perspective projection share a common vanishing point. >> This >> seems not to be the case particularly in the upper and lower edges of >> the green front face and the corresponding edges in the back. Also, >> you >> might want to consider to make the 'invisible' edges not as heavy >> as the >> others; I suggest to have a little of the face colour mixed in them >> to >> give them a shine-through appearance. > > Thanks for your thoughts, but ultimately, it is just a logo and I > think > it looks great ;) More importantly, it's just a facelift of the current logo (which has always been skewed) and some people seems to like it. The discussion about it the last time it came up (October last year). http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-October/msg00017.html Cheers, Micke -- Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Le lundi 28 janvier 2008, à 01:27 +0100, Andreas Nilsson a écrit : > Vincent Untz wrote: > > Le dimanche 27 janvier 2008, à 23:37 +, Martyn Russell a écrit : > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > >> from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > >> > >> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ > >> > >> The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > >> issues to take up before then, let me know. > >> > > > > In overview.html, there's a link to atk.org, which doesn't look like a > > website about ATK... > > > > Vincent > > > Hi Vincent! > Is there any separate website for ATK? > If not, we can remove the link. I don't think ATK has a website. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Le lundi 28 janvier 2008, à 01:25 +0100, Andreas Nilsson a écrit : > Olav Vitters wrote: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/development.html > > * links to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for donation things, shouldn't > >that rather use some private email address? IIRC there is a > >better one. perhaps also mention that although it is the GNOME > >foundation, the money will be dedicated to GTK+ (there is such an > >arrangement right?) > > > What address is that? I guess it's [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Hi ! On Jan 28, 2008 10:48 AM, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Logo: fresh look, I like it. However, it looks slightly distorted to me, > > if it is supposed to resemble a perfect cube. As you know, all parallel > > lines in a perspective projection share a common vanishing point. This > > seems not to be the case particularly in the upper and lower edges of > > the green front face and the corresponding edges in the back. Also, you > > might want to consider to make the 'invisible' edges not as heavy as the > > others; I suggest to have a little of the face colour mixed in them to > > give them a shine-through appearance. > > Thanks for your thoughts, but ultimately, it is just a logo and I think > it looks great ;) > Talking about the logo (which is very nice - simple and cool, like gtk :)), what about a page where one's could get it in different formats (svg, png, icon sized, etc.) ? cheers, Christophe. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Bastiaan Veelo wrote: > Hi, Hi, > First off: congratulations with a clean site, good first impressions. I > am not a GTK+ dev, but I happened to see your post and take the liberty > to share my small comments. Thanks, it has taken long enough :) > Logo: fresh look, I like it. However, it looks slightly distorted to me, > if it is supposed to resemble a perfect cube. As you know, all parallel > lines in a perspective projection share a common vanishing point. This > seems not to be the case particularly in the upper and lower edges of > the green front face and the corresponding edges in the back. Also, you > might want to consider to make the 'invisible' edges not as heavy as the > others; I suggest to have a little of the face colour mixed in them to > give them a shine-through appearance. Thanks for your thoughts, but ultimately, it is just a logo and I think it looks great ;) > Banner: is one single PNG. I don't know how much band-width is an issue > today (it isn't for me) and the file is not very large, but it could be > reduced more by having the logo and the title in separate PNGs against a > background gradient. This is very much a non-issue to me. You can do it either way. I prefer the way it is because you get a consistent feel across all browsers and are not subjected to different font size and look issues. > Lay-out: I personally dislike sites with a fixed page width. I think > that the ability of browsers to authonomously break lines is one of the > prime beauties of HTML. It is a lot of scrolling too, as the pages are > quite narrow. As a user of gtk.org I would really appreciate it if you > could drop the fixed width :-) The layout will not change ;) I have spent 4 drafts trying out different layouts and trying to get ONE which works on all browsers and works on devices like the Nokia N800, etc is a nightmare. The fixed width design is used quite often on other sites too. > None of these issues should delay the release, they can be adjusted any > time. And I can help if you want. No need, but thanks for your support and your comments! -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Hi, First off: congratulations with a clean site, good first impressions. I am not a GTK+ dev, but I happened to see your post and take the liberty to share my small comments. Logo: fresh look, I like it. However, it looks slightly distorted to me, if it is supposed to resemble a perfect cube. As you know, all parallel lines in a perspective projection share a common vanishing point. This seems not to be the case particularly in the upper and lower edges of the green front face and the corresponding edges in the back. Also, you might want to consider to make the 'invisible' edges not as heavy as the others; I suggest to have a little of the face colour mixed in them to give them a shine-through appearance. Banner: is one single PNG. I don't know how much band-width is an issue today (it isn't for me) and the file is not very large, but it could be reduced more by having the logo and the title in separate PNGs against a background gradient. Lay-out: I personally dislike sites with a fixed page width. I think that the ability of browsers to authonomously break lines is one of the prime beauties of HTML. It is a lot of scrolling too, as the pages are quite narrow. As a user of gtk.org I would really appreciate it if you could drop the fixed width :-) None of these issues should delay the release, they can be adjusted any time. And I can help if you want. Cheers! Bastiaan. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Andreas Nilsson wrote: > Olav Vitters wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:37:47PM +, Martyn Russell wrote: >> >> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ >> >> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation.html >> * under API, perhaps s/Library/Component/ or something? >> * links to: >>http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html >>with a mention of gtk 1.2 docs. I'd assume to get API docs, but those >>aren't there. >> >> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html >> * links to http://imendio.com/tutorial1.2/, which seems to be down or >> something. >> >> > Sorry, missed that when I went over it for broken links earlier today. > http://imendio.com/tutorial1.2/ is the wrong link. Any idea where I can > find this documentation? > Upon closer inspection, this seems to be one of the tutorials that Tim's script builds when picking stuff up from SVN, it's currently here [1]. So this link should work as soon as the site is up on gtk.org 1. http://gtk.org/tutorial1.2/ - Andreas ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Martyn Russell wrote: > Hi, > > The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ > > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > issues to take up before then, let me know. > We should coordinate this with the switch to cube. I upgraded the machine this weekend. -Shawn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
[snip] On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:25:51AM +0100, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/features.html > > * no n810 > > > Latest and greatest should totally be there. Perhaps we should only use > the n810 there. Saying only the N-series would save us from fixing this > every year when a new model comes out, but N-series is for their phones > as well, right? Or use "Nokia internet tablets" or maemo ? -- GPG-Key: 0xA3FD0DF7 - 9F73 032E EAC9 F7AD 951F 280E CB66 8E29 A3FD 0DF7 Debian User and Developer. Homepage: www.foolab.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Vincent Untz wrote: > Le dimanche 27 janvier 2008, à 23:37 +, Martyn Russell a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help >> from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: >> >> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ >> >> The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any >> issues to take up before then, let me know. >> > > In overview.html, there's a link to atk.org, which doesn't look like a > website about ATK... > > Vincent > Hi Vincent! Is there any separate website for ATK? If not, we can remove the link. - Andreas ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Olav Vitters wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:37:47PM +, Martyn Russell wrote: > >> The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help >> from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: >> >> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ >> >> The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any >> issues to take up before then, let me know. >> > > Looks great. Tried to find very small things to note (nothing important): > > Hi Olav! Glad you like it! > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/index.html > * LGPL link is the v3 one > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/features.html > * no n810 > Latest and greatest should totally be there. Perhaps we should only use the n810 there. Saying only the N-series would save us from fixing this every year when a new model comes out, but N-series is for their phones as well, right? > * 'Partially Supported' image looks like a negative (not supported) > * cross platform should include BSD etc as well > I used the ones that we use in Clearlooks. We have the " - "-character there. Perhaps we could use a grayed out check or something. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/overview.html > * perhaps mention LGPL version? > * languages could link to languages overview page > * community section talks about 2.10 while 2.12 is out > * community has 'These people are listed below.', don't see them > * community: have a link to the release announcement > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/download-linux.html > * outdated versions > * really linux? > Linux is a really strong brand and probably what ISV's are looking for. I think it would be a bit tricky if we start addressing all the UNIXes. gnome.org says "GNOME offers an easy to understand desktop for your GNU/Linux or UNIX computer." "Linux and UNIX" could work. A voice in the back of my head (that sounds a bit like RMS voice :) ) say it should say GNU/Linux. > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation.html > * under API, perhaps s/Library/Component/ or something? > * links to: >http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html >with a mention of gtk 1.2 docs. I'd assume to get API docs, but those >aren't there. > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html > * links to http://imendio.com/tutorial1.2/, which seems to be down or > something. > Sorry, missed that when I went over it for broken links earlier today. http://imendio.com/tutorial1.2/ is the wrong link. Any idea where I can find this documentation? > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/mailing-lists.html > * perhaps add 'language-bindings' ? > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/development.html > * links to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for donation things, shouldn't >that rather use some private email address? IIRC there is a >better one. perhaps also mention that although it is the GNOME >foundation, the money will be dedicated to GTK+ (there is such an >arrangement right?) > What address is that? Thanks for all the feedback! - Andreas ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Le dimanche 27 janvier 2008, à 23:37 +, Martyn Russell a écrit : > Hi, > > The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ > > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > issues to take up before then, let me know. In overview.html, there's a link to atk.org, which doesn't look like a website about ATK... Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:37:47PM +, Martyn Russell wrote: > The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ > > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > issues to take up before then, let me know. Looks great. Tried to find very small things to note (nothing important): http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/index.html * LGPL link is the v3 one http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/features.html * no n810 * 'Partially Supported' image looks like a negative (not supported) * cross platform should include BSD etc as well http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/overview.html * perhaps mention LGPL version? * languages could link to languages overview page * community section talks about 2.10 while 2.12 is out * community has 'These people are listed below.', don't see them * community: have a link to the release announcement http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/download-linux.html * outdated versions * really linux? http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation.html * under API, perhaps s/Library/Component/ or something? * links to: http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html with a mention of gtk 1.2 docs. I'd assume to get API docs, but those aren't there. http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/documentation-old.html * links to http://imendio.com/tutorial1.2/, which seems to be down or something. http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/mailing-lists.html * perhaps add 'language-bindings' ? http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/development.html * links to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for donation things, shouldn't that rather use some private email address? IIRC there is a better one. perhaps also mention that although it is the GNOME foundation, the money will be dedicated to GTK+ (there is such an arrangement right?) -- Regards, Olav ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 23:37 +, Martyn Russell wrote: > Hi, > > The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help > from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ it's very, very cool. kudos to you and Andreas: you lot did an impressive job. I really like the new logo as well. > The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any > issues to take up before then, let me know. none from me. ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi, W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.net B: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft
Hi, The final draft of the new GTK+ web site has been complete with help from Andreas Nilsson and are now available here: http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/ The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has any issues to take up before then, let me know. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Martyn Russell wrote: ... > > Well, that would probably be ideal and perhaps possible if the hardware > was permitting but it isn't and as we found from this recent thread: > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2008-January/msg00047.html > > no sysadmins seems to be stepping forward regarding this. > > As a result, this will have to wait. > I'm willing to do whatever it takes to help improve gtk.org. As such, I will provide my services as sysadmin. As far as hardware goes, we can use cube; if it is insufficient, I'll upgrade the hardware. I think a CMS is an excellent idea. Are there any opinions on what would be the best solution? How about drupal? Mid-march will be gtk.org's 10th birthday! -Shawn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
GTK+ Website Review - Listing Core Maintainers
Hi, I have been toying with the idea and asking people's opinions on keeping a list of core maintainers on the new GTK+ website (which will be up for final review this weekend hopefully). The idea here is to list people and their affiliation. On the current pages we list a handful of people which have been highly involved in some of today's core widgets. This list of contributors is slightly out of date and could do with some amendments. What are people's opinions on this? The plan would be to have something like (excuse the ASCII art): Core Maintainers | Affiliation -- Tim Yanik| Imendio AB Matthias Clasen | Red Hat ... I am willing to keep this list up to date being the maintainer for the GTK+ web pages, however, it would require some notification from the current core maintainers to know when we should add or remove people from that list. This is not likely to be often and any one could do it of course. This list should ideally be suggested and agreed upon by the core maintainers. I personally think this is a good idea. The tricky part of course, is deciding who is on that list. I am sure the core maintainers have a good idea of who should be included. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Mohammed Sameer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:44:01AM +, Martyn Russell wrote: >> Murray Cumming wrote: >>> HTML is slightly more likely to be kept-up-to-date than DocBook. >>> However, no FAQ is likely to be kept up to date unless it's very >>> easy to edit/comment. >> Well, given the new site has proper CSS and HTML separation, >> editing the FAQ will be no harder to edit than the docbook SGML. > > Why not a CMS then ? No flame please. Just wondering... Well, that would probably be ideal and perhaps possible if the hardware was permitting but it isn't and as we found from this recent thread: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2008-January/msg00047.html no sysadmins seems to be stepping forward regarding this. As a result, this will have to wait. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:44:01AM +, Martyn Russell wrote: > Murray Cumming wrote: > > HTML is slightly more likely to be kept-up-to-date than DocBook. > > However, no FAQ is likely to be kept up to date unless it's very easy to > > edit/comment. > > Well, given the new site has proper CSS and HTML separation, editing the > FAQ will be no harder to edit than the docbook SGML. Why not a CMS then ? No flame please. Just wondering... -- GPG-Key: 0xA3FD0DF7 - 9F73 032E EAC9 F7AD 951F 280E CB66 8E29 A3FD 0DF7 Debian User and Developer. Homepage: www.foolab.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Martyn Russell wrote: > Actually, I noticed that it is on the wiki actually: > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk-faq/stable/ > > How is it put there, just simply generated from docbook and slightly > updated to fit into the style of the pages? It is generated from the source tarballs, files from docs/faq/html/ are processed to get into library look. > I think it probably makes sense to have on library.gnome.org to be > honest, since it is another form of documentation, which we are also > linking to on the new gtk.org site. > > So it gets my vote :) Unfortunately it doesn't meet the "easy to add/edit" criteria; library will someday support annotating paragraphs (planned for 2.22 but won't be there on time) but this quite anecdotical to the possibility to edit questions/answers. Frederic ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Shawn Amundson wrote: > Martyn Russell wrote: >> 2. With regards to the FAQ, is there a burning need to have this in a >> docbook format? Currently it is a mess and I am thinking of reforming >> it, but before I do, I wonder if we should just put it completely in >> HTML and as part of the website. Is there any need for us to put it in >> PDF or any other format, really? > > How about it be placed in a wiki? Actually, I noticed that it is on the wiki actually: http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk-faq/stable/ How is it put there, just simply generated from docbook and slightly updated to fit into the style of the pages? I think it probably makes sense to have on library.gnome.org to be honest, since it is another form of documentation, which we are also linking to on the new gtk.org site. So it gets my vote :) >> 3. Do we really need a gtk 1.2 FAQ? If not, I will remove the cruft from >> the FAQ that is no longer pertinent. > > No, and if someone wanted a GTK+ 1.2 FAQ, they could always get it off > the FTP site inside the source tar file. ;-) Great! Hopefully, this should mean the FAQ can be significantly trimmed. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Murray Cumming wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 15:05 +, Martyn Russell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I will be posting my final review of the gtk.org pages in the coming few >> weeks and I wanted people's opinions on a few things. >> >> 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org >> site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor, >> any input here? >> >> 2. With regards to the FAQ, is there a burning need to have this in a >> docbook format? Currently it is a mess and I am thinking of reforming >> it, but before I do, I wonder if we should just put it completely in >> HTML and as part of the website. Is there any need for us to put it in >> PDF or any other format, really? > > HTML is slightly more likely to be kept-up-to-date than DocBook. > However, no FAQ is likely to be kept up to date unless it's very easy to > edit/comment. Well, given the new site has proper CSS and HTML separation, editing the FAQ will be no harder to edit than the docbook SGML. > >> 3. Do we really need a gtk 1.2 FAQ? If not, I will remove the cruft from >> the FAQ that is no longer pertinent. > > Sounds good. Great! -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Martyn Russell wrote: > Hi all, > > I will be posting my final review of the gtk.org pages in the coming few > weeks and I wanted people's opinions on a few things. > > 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org > site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor, > any input here? Excellent idea. > 2. With regards to the FAQ, is there a burning need to have this in a > docbook format? Currently it is a mess and I am thinking of reforming > it, but before I do, I wonder if we should just put it completely in > HTML and as part of the website. Is there any need for us to put it in > PDF or any other format, really? How about it be placed in a wiki? > 3. Do we really need a gtk 1.2 FAQ? If not, I will remove the cruft from > the FAQ that is no longer pertinent. No, and if someone wanted a GTK+ 1.2 FAQ, they could always get it off the FTP site inside the source tar file. ;-) -Shawn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 15:05 +, Martyn Russell wrote: > Hi all, > > I will be posting my final review of the gtk.org pages in the coming few > weeks and I wanted people's opinions on a few things. > > 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org > site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor, > any input here? > > 2. With regards to the FAQ, is there a burning need to have this in a > docbook format? Currently it is a mess and I am thinking of reforming > it, but before I do, I wonder if we should just put it completely in > HTML and as part of the website. Is there any need for us to put it in > PDF or any other format, really? HTML is slightly more likely to be kept-up-to-date than DocBook. However, no FAQ is likely to be kept up to date unless it's very easy to edit/comment. > 3. Do we really need a gtk 1.2 FAQ? If not, I will remove the cruft from > the FAQ that is no longer pertinent. Sounds good. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Tor Lillqvist wrote: >> 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org >> site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor, >> any input here? > > The binaries *are* on ftp.gtk.org (actually more completely on > ftp.gnome.org). With my "site" you probably mean the > www.gimp.org/win32/downloads.html page, which just has links to > ftp.gnome.org. Yea, hosting the actual downloads page is more what I meant. When using Google for "gtk download windows" just now, yours wasn't top of the list and there are others that provide version of GTK+ on windows. It would be good to have it officially listed on gtk.org. > This downloads.html page would fit better on > www.gtk.org indeed, especially as there isn't much GIMP-specific on > the page any more. Great, thanks Tor. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
> 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org > site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor, > any input here? The binaries *are* on ftp.gtk.org (actually more completely on ftp.gnome.org). With my "site" you probably mean the www.gimp.org/win32/downloads.html page, which just has links to ftp.gnome.org. This downloads.html page would fit better on www.gtk.org indeed, especially as there isn't much GIMP-specific on the page any more. --tml ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
Hi all, I will be posting my final review of the gtk.org pages in the coming few weeks and I wanted people's opinions on a few things. 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor, any input here? 2. With regards to the FAQ, is there a burning need to have this in a docbook format? Currently it is a mess and I am thinking of reforming it, but before I do, I wonder if we should just put it completely in HTML and as part of the website. Is there any need for us to put it in PDF or any other format, really? 3. Do we really need a gtk 1.2 FAQ? If not, I will remove the cruft from the FAQ that is no longer pertinent. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
Alberto Ruiz wrote: > 2007/10/10, Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Am Mittwoch, den 10.10.2007, 11:08 +0100 schrieb Alberto Ruiz: >>> The light in the middle of the cube (in the center corner) doesn't >>> help to make contrast with the white letters. >>> Tango suggests to use the upper left corner as a light source and I >>> think it would work better. >> Ok, modified the icon: >> >> - gtk-logo1.svg: Just cleaned up the glyphs. >> - gtk-logo2.svg: The same, but black glyphs. >> - gtk-logo3.svg: Moved the light source to the upper left corner. >> - gtk-logo4.svg: Same again, but bright glyphs. I prefer #2 then #1, I don't like #3 or #4 much. > I think that we won't find a way to decide if the logo is going to be good > or not, since we´re basically stating personal opinions. Why don't we > forward this challenge to the gnome-art team guys? Maybe they can came up > with a solution that can please us all. That won't happen. You won't find something everyone likes. The best solution is for some people highly involved in the project to just pick one. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
2007/10/10, Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Am Mittwoch, den 10.10.2007, 11:08 +0100 schrieb Alberto Ruiz: > > The light in the middle of the cube (in the center corner) doesn't > > help to make contrast with the white letters. > > Tango suggests to use the upper left corner as a light source and I > > think it would work better. > > Ok, modified the icon: > > - gtk-logo1.svg: Just cleaned up the glyphs. > - gtk-logo2.svg: The same, but black glyphs. > - gtk-logo3.svg: Moved the light source to the upper left corner. > - gtk-logo4.svg: Same again, but bright glyphs. I think that we won't find a way to decide if the logo is going to be good or not, since we´re basically stating personal opinions. Why don't we forward this challenge to the gnome-art team guys? Maybe they can came up with a solution that can please us all. Ciao, > Mathias > > -- > Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://taschenorakel.de/ > > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
Am Mittwoch, den 10.10.2007, 18:11 -0400 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Message body is too big: 173477 bytes with a limit of 100 KB So I'll resend: > Am Mittwoch, den 10.10.2007, 11:08 +0100 schrieb Alberto Ruiz: > > The light in the middle of the cube (in the center corner) doesn't > > help to make contrast with the white letters. > > Tango suggests to use the upper left corner as a light source and I > > think it would work better. > > Ok, modified the icon: > > - gtk-logo1.svg: Just cleaned up the glyphs. > - gtk-logo2.svg: The same, but black glyphs. > - gtk-logo3.svg: Moved the light source to the upper left corner. > - gtk-logo4.svg: Same again, but bright glyphs. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://taschenorakel.de/ gtk-logo.tar.gz Description: application/compressed-tar signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 09:25 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: > Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > > Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 11:36 +0200 schrieb Kristian Rietveld: > >> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 04:22:09PM +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > >>> Have anyone seen this[0] one? I think it's a great improvement > over the > >>> original one. And as Xan said, we avoid the > >>> aqua-and-rounded-corners-mac-and-web20-like look and feel :) > >>> > >>> [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GTK.svg > > > > Vectorized the old logo and tried to apply Tango colors and > gradients to > > it. Not satisfied with the result - seems I've lost any art-foo I > > probably never had. For what's worth I am attaching the result > > nevertheless. Guess we should get one of the real Tango wizards to > work > > on the logo. > > Hi Mathias, > > Yea I really like this icon. > Does anyone have any objections? > If not, I will consider using it on the website. I actually really like the one on Wikipedia better. I think the main thing is the text color.. I like the black text much better than the white. But this is also out of the context of where it will be seen, so perhaps on the website it would be better looking with white letters, I don't know. Just my $0.02. / Cody ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
2007/10/10, Martyn Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > > Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 11:36 +0200 schrieb Kristian Rietveld: > >> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 04:22:09PM +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > >>> Have anyone seen this[0] one? I think it's a great improvement over > the > >>> original one. And as Xan said, we avoid the > >>> aqua-and-rounded-corners-mac-and-web20-like look and feel :) > >>> > >>> [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GTK.svg > >> I think this one is worse than the current GTK+ logo; it looks all > watery to > >> me and the colors are very pale. Things I like about the current logo > >> are the box concept (that has some kind of message like Matthias said > earlier > >> in this thread) and the sketchy look. The colors might be too > intensive, but > >> maybe they just need to be tango-ized and get some fading/shadow. > >> > >> I am certainly not against having a new, more modern, logo, but I > couldn't > >> find any I like in the logos posted in this thread so far ... > > > > Vectorized the old logo and tried to apply Tango colors and gradients to > > > it. Not satisfied with the result - seems I've lost any art-foo I > > probably never had. For what's worth I am attaching the result > > nevertheless. Guess we should get one of the real Tango wizards to work > > on the logo. > > Hi Mathias, > > Yea I really like this icon. > Does anyone have any objections? > If not, I will consider using it on the website. The light in the middle of the cube (in the center corner) doesn't help to make contrast with the white letters. Tango suggests to use the upper left corner as a light source and I think it would work better. I think that the litl > > -- > Regards, > Martyn > ___ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
Murray Cumming wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:40 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: [snip] >>> Under Language Bindings on the same page, i believe that >>> gtk2-perl has had full support for 2.0 and 2.2 for quite some >>> time now. > [snip] > > As the original page says, these have always been self-reported > "supported" statuses. It's not perfect but nothing else would work. > The original page mentions that this information should be sent to > the language-bindings mailing list, which is how I regularly update > the page. http://www.gtk.org/bindings.html Ah, OK, thanks Murray, I missed that when writing the new pages. I will add that. > I notice also that there is no longer a separate section for the > language bindings that are on the GNOME Platform Bindings schedule. > These bindings are far more complete and reliably maintained than the > others and shouldn't be lost among the bigger list. In fact, the > sentence about the bindings that follow the release schedule is now > completely false and misleading. > http://www.imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/features.html OK. The list we have there is much more comprehensive than the language bindings information on live.gnome.org. I think it probably makes sense to make the distinction about which bindings are provided in GNOME and updated regularly (with a link to the live.gnome.org pages) as well as the other language bindings available. I will update the information about the bindings following the release schedule too - obviously this only applies to bindings we ship with the platform, not ALL bindings listed on the features page. > > But I still think that nobody will ever find this list again where it > is hidden at the end of a large page. I think this point is irrelevant. I don't think we should have a separate link (i.e. in the link menu at the top of the page) for language bindings because there isn't enough space and it isn't as important as some of the other things we could have on there. To me, it is obvious that language bindings would be on the features page if at all. If people want to find that information they will, I really don't think you have to go out of your way to make it more accessible. I am thinking about first time visitors looking to use the site, if they are really interested, they are most likely to go to the Features page and read everything they can achieve with this toolkit. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 11:36 +0200 schrieb Kristian Rietveld: >> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 04:22:09PM +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: >>> Have anyone seen this[0] one? I think it's a great improvement over the >>> original one. And as Xan said, we avoid the >>> aqua-and-rounded-corners-mac-and-web20-like look and feel :) >>> >>> [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GTK.svg >> I think this one is worse than the current GTK+ logo; it looks all watery to >> me and the colors are very pale. Things I like about the current logo >> are the box concept (that has some kind of message like Matthias said earlier >> in this thread) and the sketchy look. The colors might be too intensive, but >> maybe they just need to be tango-ized and get some fading/shadow. >> >> I am certainly not against having a new, more modern, logo, but I couldn't >> find any I like in the logos posted in this thread so far ... > > Vectorized the old logo and tried to apply Tango colors and gradients to > it. Not satisfied with the result - seems I've lost any art-foo I > probably never had. For what's worth I am attaching the result > nevertheless. Guess we should get one of the real Tango wizards to work > on the logo. Hi Mathias, Yea I really like this icon. Does anyone have any objections? If not, I will consider using it on the website. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 11:36 +0200 schrieb Kristian Rietveld: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 04:22:09PM +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > > Have anyone seen this[0] one? I think it's a great improvement over the > > original one. And as Xan said, we avoid the > > aqua-and-rounded-corners-mac-and-web20-like look and feel :) > > > > [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GTK.svg > > I think this one is worse than the current GTK+ logo; it looks all watery to > me and the colors are very pale. Things I like about the current logo > are the box concept (that has some kind of message like Matthias said earlier > in this thread) and the sketchy look. The colors might be too intensive, but > maybe they just need to be tango-ized and get some fading/shadow. > > I am certainly not against having a new, more modern, logo, but I couldn't > find any I like in the logos posted in this thread so far ... Vectorized the old logo and tried to apply Tango colors and gradients to it. Not satisfied with the result - seems I've lost any art-foo I probably never had. For what's worth I am attaching the result nevertheless. Guess we should get one of the real Tango wizards to work on the logo. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://taschenorakel.de/ <> signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On 10/7/07, Christophe Dehais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ok guys, one more cube here. > again, no color, just to see how the shapes look like. I think it looks very good and the current sketched box icon is ugly. It is impossible to make it look good at different resolutions. -- mvh Björn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 04:22:09PM +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > Have anyone seen this[0] one? I think it's a great improvement over the > original one. And as Xan said, we avoid the > aqua-and-rounded-corners-mac-and-web20-like look and feel :) > > [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GTK.svg I think this one is worse than the current GTK+ logo; it looks all watery to me and the colors are very pale. Things I like about the current logo are the box concept (that has some kind of message like Matthias said earlier in this thread) and the sketchy look. The colors might be too intensive, but maybe they just need to be tango-ized and get some fading/shadow. I am certainly not against having a new, more modern, logo, but I couldn't find any I like in the logos posted in this thread so far ... thanks, -kris. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
2007/10/7, Christophe Dehais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 10/7/07, Salvatore De Paolis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Keep it as a joke, but this logo looks like a suppository:) > > true! I hope nobody will think we finally have the "message" of the > toolkit :) Have anyone seen this[0] one? I think it's a great improvement over the original one. And as Xan said, we avoid the aqua-and-rounded-corners-mac-and-web20-like look and feel :) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GTK.svg Christophe > > > S. > > ___ > > gtk-devel-list mailing list > > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > > ___ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On 10/7/07, Salvatore De Paolis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keep it as a joke, but this logo looks like a suppository:) true! I hope nobody will think we finally have the "message" of the toolkit :) Christophe > S. > ___ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 13:30 +0200, Christophe Dehais wrote: > ok guys, one more cube here. > again, no color, just to see how the shapes look like. > > feel free to bash the idea. I think the shapes look very nice. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:51:23 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The box *looks* awesome, it just needs some gradient or texture in it to > give it the fashion trend you are looking for. I agree with the box too. It just needs to be updated to the 2.12. Imho, a complete change of the logo needs something much more impressive. Keep it as a joke, but this logo looks like a suppository:) S. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
Am Sonntag, den 07.10.2007, 12:51 +0200 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 12:45:23PM +0300, Xan Lopez wrote: > > On 10/7/07, Mikael Hallendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 6 okt 2007 kl. 19.41 skrev Christophe Dehais: > > > For what it's worth, I like it a lot! > > > > > > I personally like it much better than a variant of the current skewed > > > box. > > > > I wonder if I'm the only person alive that really likes the GTK+ box > > logo. I love its cranky, not-really-serious look and feel. Granted, > > it's probably not the best logo in the world for a world-class > > toolkit, and it could use a refreshment, but going for the usual > > corporate-logo-with-reflections-and-bland-colors would be a downer for > > me. > > +1 > > The box *looks* awesome, it just needs some gradient or texture in it to > give it the fashion trend you are looking for. Christophe's glossy pill looks awesome, but in opposition to the old logo it has absolutly no message, whereas the old logo clearly has one: The old logo looks like one of those wooden bricks little children use to build houses. A perfect metapher for a toolkit like GTK+: Absolutly versatile, very solid and easy to use. > > My useless 2 cents in the classic bike shed discussion :) > > > > Cheers, Xan > > Now you have 0.04 ;) Well, now it are 0.06 :-D Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://taschenorakel.de/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 12:45:23PM +0300, Xan Lopez wrote: > On 10/7/07, Mikael Hallendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 6 okt 2007 kl. 19.41 skrev Christophe Dehais: > > > > Hi, > > > > For what it's worth, I like it a lot! > > > > I personally like it much better than a variant of the current skewed > > box. > > I wonder if I'm the only person alive that really likes the GTK+ box > logo. I love its cranky, not-really-serious look and feel. Granted, > it's probably not the best logo in the world for a world-class > toolkit, and it could use a refreshment, but going for the usual > corporate-logo-with-reflections-and-bland-colors would be a downer for > me. +1 The box *looks* awesome, it just needs some gradient or texture in it to give it the fashion trend you are looking for. > My useless 2 cents in the classic bike shed discussion :) > > Cheers, Xan Now you have 0.04 ;) Mike ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
On 10/7/07, Mikael Hallendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 6 okt 2007 kl. 19.41 skrev Christophe Dehais: > > Hi, > > For what it's worth, I like it a lot! > > I personally like it much better than a variant of the current skewed > box. I wonder if I'm the only person alive that really likes the GTK+ box logo. I love its cranky, not-really-serious look and feel. Granted, it's probably not the best logo in the world for a world-class toolkit, and it could use a refreshment, but going for the usual corporate-logo-with-reflections-and-bland-colors would be a downer for me. My useless 2 cents in the classic bike shed discussion :) Cheers, Xan > > Cheers, >Micke > > > Hi list! > > > > Today, I got bored of my work, so I played a bit with Inskape and came > > up with another logo proposition. I can't get anything inspiring out > > of the "cube" design, so here is a completely different approach. It's > > not very colorful, but maybe the original blue green and red colors > > could find there way as some shade or reflection. > > > > cheers, > > Christophe > > > > > > On 5/29/07, Christophe Dehais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Keeping the cube idea, I added some perspective to it (instead of a > >> somewhat flat orthographic projection). > >> > >> I agree with the 'fragile' remark. Maybe having glossy but not > >> transparent faces ? > >> > >> Attached an inkscape file (with a perspective helper on one layer) > >> and a preview. > >> The letters should also have correct perspective. > >> > >> cheers, > >> Christophe. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5/29/07, Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Am Dienstag, den 29.05.2007, 01:31 +0200 schrieb Felix Rabe > >>> (public): > >>> I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would > >>> fit quite > >>> well in this design. > >> Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few > >> ideas and > >> they looked good, but nothing further so far. > >> > > > > I might have another proposal based on the first one from > > Christophe > > ready in a short while. > >>> > >>> Those detached, glossy faces look cool, but they also make the > >>> logo look > >>> fragile. Well, and "fragile" that's definitly not a term I do or > >>> want > >>> associate with GTK+... > >>> > >>> Ciao, > >>> Mathias > >>> -- > >>> Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> http://taschenorakel.de/ > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> gtk-devel-list mailing list > >>> gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > >>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ___ > > gtk-devel-list mailing list > > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > > > -- > Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com > > > > ___ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
6 okt 2007 kl. 19.41 skrev Christophe Dehais: Hi, For what it's worth, I like it a lot! I personally like it much better than a variant of the current skewed box. Cheers, Micke > Hi list! > > Today, I got bored of my work, so I played a bit with Inskape and came > up with another logo proposition. I can't get anything inspiring out > of the "cube" design, so here is a completely different approach. It's > not very colorful, but maybe the original blue green and red colors > could find there way as some shade or reflection. > > cheers, > Christophe > > > On 5/29/07, Christophe Dehais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Keeping the cube idea, I added some perspective to it (instead of a >> somewhat flat orthographic projection). >> >> I agree with the 'fragile' remark. Maybe having glossy but not >> transparent faces ? >> >> Attached an inkscape file (with a perspective helper on one layer) >> and a preview. >> The letters should also have correct perspective. >> >> cheers, >> Christophe. >> >> >> >> On 5/29/07, Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Am Dienstag, den 29.05.2007, 01:31 +0200 schrieb Felix Rabe >>> (public): >>> I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would >>> fit quite >>> well in this design. >> Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few >> ideas and >> they looked good, but nothing further so far. >> > > I might have another proposal based on the first one from > Christophe > ready in a short while. >>> >>> Those detached, glossy faces look cool, but they also make the >>> logo look >>> fragile. Well, and "fragile" that's definitly not a term I do or >>> want >>> associate with GTK+... >>> >>> Ciao, >>> Mathias >>> -- >>> Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> http://taschenorakel.de/ >>> >>> ___ >>> gtk-devel-list mailing list >>> gtk-devel-list@gnome.org >>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > ___ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list -- Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
Hi list! Today, I got bored of my work, so I played a bit with Inskape and came up with another logo proposition. I can't get anything inspiring out of the "cube" design, so here is a completely different approach. It's not very colorful, but maybe the original blue green and red colors could find there way as some shade or reflection. cheers, Christophe On 5/29/07, Christophe Dehais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keeping the cube idea, I added some perspective to it (instead of a > somewhat flat orthographic projection). > > I agree with the 'fragile' remark. Maybe having glossy but not > transparent faces ? > > Attached an inkscape file (with a perspective helper on one layer) > and a preview. > The letters should also have correct perspective. > > cheers, > Christophe. > > > > On 5/29/07, Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am Dienstag, den 29.05.2007, 01:31 +0200 schrieb Felix Rabe (public): > > > >>> I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would fit quite > > > >>> well in this design. > > > >> Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few ideas and > > > >> they looked good, but nothing further so far. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I might have another proposal based on the first one from Christophe > > > > ready in a short while. > > > > Those detached, glossy faces look cool, but they also make the logo look > > fragile. Well, and "fragile" that's definitly not a term I do or want > > associate with GTK+... > > > > Ciao, > > Mathias > > -- > > Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://taschenorakel.de/ > > > > ___ > > gtk-devel-list mailing list > > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > > > > > > > <><>___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review - draft 2
Hi, It might be an idea to link the list items in the "Interfaces" and "Foundations" section of the features page to the relevant parts of the API documentation on library.gnome.org. That is, unless the features page isn't meant for programmers. You might also want to insert some more whitespace into the area at the top; it looks a little crowded to me. Perhaps a line underneath the page title would help stop it merging in with section headings. :-) Philip On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 13:51 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: > Hi, > > I finally got round to finishing these pages for a second review. > You can test the latest version here: > > http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft2b/about.html > > I have changed a few things compared to draft 1 which I initially did: > > - Fixed the pages so they work on devices like the N800. > - Fixed all the typos/comments that I received from the first review. > - Keep the menu on the left all times for quick navigation. > - Add a sub-menu for each page for quick "jump-to" links. > > I have tested these pages with: > > - Windows Internet Explorer 7 > - Safari (Windows beta) > - Firefox (Windows/Linux) > - Epiphany > - N800. > > It has to be said, that the pages do vary slightly from browser to > browser. Initially I went for a much smaller text but Tim convinced me > it was a bad idea and that we should use content text at 100% size not > 60% which I had tried. This does mean that in Firefox (especially on > Windows) the text does look a bit bloated. > > Of the pages the current issues left outstanding are: > > - We should have a better way of sharing future ideas (dev page) > - Is linking to a directory for old irc logs good enough? > - Should we change the logo (I don't mind either way)? > - Rework the FAQ (I will do this after so ignore that for now). > - Redirections for links like http://www.gtk.org/api/xxx/ are needed. > - Update the news page (will do this before committing). > > What are peoples thoughts on those? > Have I missed anything? > Does anyone have any other general comments? > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
GTK+ Website Review - draft 2
Hi, I finally got round to finishing these pages for a second review. You can test the latest version here: http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft2b/about.html I have changed a few things compared to draft 1 which I initially did: - Fixed the pages so they work on devices like the N800. - Fixed all the typos/comments that I received from the first review. - Keep the menu on the left all times for quick navigation. - Add a sub-menu for each page for quick "jump-to" links. I have tested these pages with: - Windows Internet Explorer 7 - Safari (Windows beta) - Firefox (Windows/Linux) - Epiphany - N800. It has to be said, that the pages do vary slightly from browser to browser. Initially I went for a much smaller text but Tim convinced me it was a bad idea and that we should use content text at 100% size not 60% which I had tried. This does mean that in Firefox (especially on Windows) the text does look a bit bloated. Of the pages the current issues left outstanding are: - We should have a better way of sharing future ideas (dev page) - Is linking to a directory for old irc logs good enough? - Should we change the logo (I don't mind either way)? - Rework the FAQ (I will do this after so ignore that for now). - Redirections for links like http://www.gtk.org/api/xxx/ are needed. - Update the news page (will do this before committing). What are peoples thoughts on those? Have I missed anything? Does anyone have any other general comments? -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
Le mardi 29 mai 2007, à 11:43 +0100, Martyn Russell a écrit : > Jonathon Conte wrote: > > I'm fairly new to GTK+ development. One of the main things to hinder my > > adoption of GTK+ was the lack of up-to-date documentation oriented > > towards those not familiar with GTK+and GLib. Fortunately a very > > thorough book that breaks down this barrier, "Foundations of GTK+ > > Development" by Andrew Krause, was published recently. The book's > > website is here: > > http://www.gtkbook.com/ > > > > To me, documentation such as this is of the utmost importance when it > > comes to projects like GTK+. Hopefully you'll consider mentioning the > > release of this book (and others like it that are published in the > > future) in the news section of the new GTK+ website or at the very least > > include it in the documentation section. > > > > For what its worth, I have no affiliation with the author or the > > publisher. I'm just happy that a book to fill this gap was finally written. > > This is a good point. When I first started out with GTK+ I was looking > for a good book, and including it on the site is a good idea. I will do. > > Can anyone vouch for this book, is it worth the read? Behdad took a quick look at the ebook: http://mces.blogspot.com/2007/05/foundations-of-gtk-development.html Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:40 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: [snip] > > Under Language Bindings on the same page, i believe that gtk2-perl has > > had full support for 2.0 and 2.2 for quite some time now. [snip] As the original page says, these have always been self-reported "supported" statuses. It's not perfect but nothing else would work. The original page mentions that this information should be sent to the language-bindings mailing list, which is how I regularly update the page. http://www.gtk.org/bindings.html I notice also that there is no longer a separate section for the language bindings that are on the GNOME Platform Bindings schedule. These bindings are far more complete and reliably maintained than the others and shouldn't be lost among the bigger list. In fact, the sentence about the bindings that follow the release schedule is now completely false and misleading. http://www.imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/features.html But I still think that nobody will ever find this list again where it is hidden at the end of a large page. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
Jonathon Conte wrote: > I'm fairly new to GTK+ development. One of the main things to hinder my > adoption of GTK+ was the lack of up-to-date documentation oriented > towards those not familiar with GTK+and GLib. Fortunately a very > thorough book that breaks down this barrier, "Foundations of GTK+ > Development" by Andrew Krause, was published recently. The book's > website is here: > http://www.gtkbook.com/ > > To me, documentation such as this is of the utmost importance when it > comes to projects like GTK+. Hopefully you'll consider mentioning the > release of this book (and others like it that are published in the > future) in the news section of the new GTK+ website or at the very least > include it in the documentation section. > > For what its worth, I have no affiliation with the author or the > publisher. I'm just happy that a book to fill this gap was finally written. This is a good point. When I first started out with GTK+ I was looking for a good book, and including it on the site is a good idea. I will do. Can anyone vouch for this book, is it worth the read? -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
muppet wrote: Just including the list in the reply. > On May 28, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Martyn Russell wrote: >> Architecture >> >> GTK+ is based on three libraries ... >> >> * Glib ... >> * Pango ... >> * Cairo ... >> * ATK ... > > Makes me think, "Our chief weapon is fear. And surprise. Surprise and > fear. Our two main weapons are fear and surprise. And ruthless > efficiency. ..." :-) Woa, good catch :) I added Cairo after that's how that happened. > Under Language Bindings on the same page, i believe that gtk2-perl has > had full support for 2.0 and 2.2 for quite some time now. Yea, again, the content here is quite important to me, the information I used from the old pages may have been grossly out of date in places. Thanks, I will update accordingly. > As a frequent user of the docs on the website, a long-time pet peeve has > been that the table of API reference docs uses the same text for all of > the links. (online, online, online at http://gtk.org/api/, and View, > View, View, View in your new one.) That makes it rather hard to jump > straight to a link when driving with the keyboard. Yea, I agree actually, I couldn't think of a much better way of doing it to be honest. Suggestions are welcome :) > This brings up another point; i know there are a *lot* of pointers on > the web to gtk.org urls like http://gtk.org/api/ and > http://gtk.org/tutorial/ ... Your new site doesn't have a /api, and > instead puts everything into /documentation.html. Any thoughts about > backward compat for the links and structure of the old site? Yes, I plan to include some redirections there. There are some other backward compatible issues which the new pages don't show up which we would need to have, such as: - http://gtk.org/setuid.html - http://www.gtk.org/api/2.6 These are the links which I gathered from my initial posting which need to be sustained. If there are any others people have in mind, let me know. >> * What are people's thoughts on the initial look and feel? > > It's rather more spartan than i expected. I do like low-bandwidth web > sites, but a bit more color wouldn't hurt. Also, gray-on-white text has > low contrast, and gets hard on the eyes. Hmm, OK, I will create another design and see what people think, perhaps one with: - Black text - Blue selection headings (instead of Red) - Some more colour in other places, perhaps for headers. > I hate to break it to you, but magic data pixies don't exist. So the rumours aren't true? :P -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
Martyn Russell skrev: > Murray Cumming wrote: Hi, Great work Martyn! >> More importantly, I'd rather not have "Gimp Toolkit" in the page >> heading. For me that's a bit like having "GNU Network Object Model >> Environment" on a GNOME page. It's not relevant, it's distracting, and >> it's a bit tacky. It's already mentioned on the About page. > > This is true, and I would have gone for just GTK+ but it is awfully > short for a title. Perhaps something like "The GTK+ Project"? "The GTK+ Project" sounds good and much better than "GTK+, Gimp Toolkit" in my opinion. Cheers, Mikael Hallendal -- Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com/ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
2007/5/29, Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Dienstag, den 29.05.2007, 01:31 +0200 schrieb Felix Rabe (public): > > >>> I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would fit quite > > >>> well in this design. > > >> Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few ideas and > > >> they looked good, but nothing further so far. > > >> > > > > > > I might have another proposal based on the first one from Christophe > > > ready in a short while. > > Those detached, glossy faces look cool, but they also make the logo look > fragile. Well, and "fragile" that's definitly not a term I do or want > associate with GTK+... Perhaps a more metallic (instead of glassy) finish on the "plating" would be good. You know, make it look like GTK+ is that sturdy and solid, yet professionally finished outer shell to your application logic. Isn't this the way we all look at GTK+ anyway? ;) -- Kalle Vahlman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Powered by http://movial.fi Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
Am Dienstag, den 29.05.2007, 01:31 +0200 schrieb Felix Rabe (public): > >>> I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would fit quite > >>> well in this design. > >> Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few ideas and > >> they looked good, but nothing further so far. > >> > > > > I might have another proposal based on the first one from Christophe > > ready in a short while. Those detached, glossy faces look cool, but they also make the logo look fragile. Well, and "fragile" that's definitly not a term I do or want associate with GTK+... Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://taschenorakel.de/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Logo (was Re: GTK+ Website Review)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Here is my take at the GTK+ logo. It is just a proposal, since it needs some optimization for icon sizes (I think). Remember that the original was from Christophe Dehais: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2007-April/msg00118.html Felix Rabe (public) wrote: > Martyn Russell wrote: > >>> I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would fit quite >>> well in this design. >> Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few ideas and >> they looked good, but nothing further so far. >> > > I might have another proposal based on the first one from Christophe > ready in a short while. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGW2ZqlW86h1QHmOcRAkLfAJ9HZaSstUmgBrr0M79jLmd7n8LsDQCfcvJD bwtItrcu+rAqk+qKKOyAibk= =3HZv -END PGP SIGNATURE- <>___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 00:08 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: > I agree. I did look into frames, etc to get around this, but that > causes > more problems than it solves. The main problem here is that the FAQ is > generated, so we would need some post-docbook fix up script to do > something here. It is not insurmountable, adding just the line to use > the CSS formatting makes quite a difference. > > The other option, was to have the FAQ only on the website and not have > an SGML document - it really depends on how necessary it is to be able > to create the FAQ in PDF, HTML, and other formats with the docbook > tools. If possible I would rather it was just online. Yes, I agree. When I am looking for a FAQ, the first place I look is on the website. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
Hi, If the headers prevent text to be black, I think headers should look different :) - Maybe use underlines (width=100%)? You might experiment with putting the text into the -- which should be there... why did you put the text next to the logo into the image file too? -- so it reads "GTK+ Overview" / "GTK+ FAQ" / "About GTK+" (!) - and use the same for (it's almost there). Then use instead of for all other headings. I say "experiment" because I can't think of a website that integrates their project name with the page name that much (or I didn't notice). Martyn Russell wrote: >> I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would fit quite >> well in this design. > > Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few ideas and > they looked good, but nothing further so far. > I might have another proposal based on the first one from Christophe ready in a short while. Greetings, Felix ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martyn Russell wrote: > Cody Russell wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:15 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: >>> * What are people's thoughts on the initial look and feel? >> It looks great, except for the FAQ. Can it be styled similarly to the >> rest of the site and include the navigation bar at the top? > > I agree. I did look into frames, etc to get around this, but that causes > more problems than it solves. The main problem here is that the FAQ is > generated, so we would need some post-docbook fix up script to do > something here. It is not insurmountable, adding just the line to use > the CSS formatting makes quite a difference. > > The other option, was to have the FAQ only on the website and not have > an SGML document - it really depends on how necessary it is to be able > to create the FAQ in PDF, HTML, and other formats with the docbook > tools. If possible I would rather it was just online. > The FAQ is in SGML, right? What about converting it to proper XML (DocBook if you like), then write a custom XSLT stylesheet for it? (I would volunteer.) Felix -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGW2J5lW86h1QHmOcRArs5AKDBtWBFIifUaXow3h8mCnHmw5f/dACgm7oy RYjbYYU31T1aAhZRauzni7c= =cY1O -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
Cody Russell wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:15 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: >> * What are people's thoughts on the initial look and feel? > > It looks great, except for the FAQ. Can it be styled similarly to the > rest of the site and include the navigation bar at the top? I agree. I did look into frames, etc to get around this, but that causes more problems than it solves. The main problem here is that the FAQ is generated, so we would need some post-docbook fix up script to do something here. It is not insurmountable, adding just the line to use the CSS formatting makes quite a difference. The other option, was to have the FAQ only on the website and not have an SGML document - it really depends on how necessary it is to be able to create the FAQ in PDF, HTML, and other formats with the docbook tools. If possible I would rather it was just online. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
Felix Rabe (public) wrote: > Hi Martyn, > > Martyn Russell wrote: >> Hi, > >> Over the last few weeks, I have spent time putting together the new >> website for gtk.org. I decided it would be easier to start from scratch >> reusing the original content. > >> I have put the new pages up here for review: > >> http://www.imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/ > >> The content is my primary interest, but if you have style queries or >> comments they are also welcome. > > Great work! This is the way to go, it looks great generally. Thanks > too for the clean HTML source. :) Yes, it is much nicer to work with. > Now come the "bad news" :) I will purely comment on style here. > > So, at first sight, the page looked a bit "empty". It was just a > feeling of "something is missing". I agree, the "Overview" page does need something, but I have yet to put my finger on it. > I think the Inkscape website had it, > but http://winehq.org/ still has it - a screenshot on the front page, > something representative besides just a logo. I think another source of > that feeling comes from the text color - just use black please. Make it > as easy on the eyes as possible, so black is *the* color for normal > paragraphs. Actually, I disagree here. Black is really quite harsh and the headers look less defined as a result. Perhaps if the headers were different it would work. > Also, the WineHQ page (at least the main page) has a reddish color > theme. Maybe use (GTK logo) colors for headings? Something like dark > (!) green for description pages (Overview, Features, About), blue for > downloadable stuff (Download, Screenshots), and red for in-depth / > development pages (Development). Hmm, that doesn't sound very logical to me and as a user I would wonder why some things are one colour and other things are another. That is just not what the user wants when they use a web site. > I would put the FAQ in the last > category, but I'm not too sure. > > I feel the coloring of the documentation page should be more unified - > there is red in the heading, and the icons are blue-ish and green. Yes, we could do something here I agree, perhaps the red menu item should be blue instead? or green? It might fit in better. > Also, the view and download icons don't match well in their style. And > maybe add some space vertically between the table rows (GLib / GObject / > Pango / ...) to not have it be one overwhelming "block". I know what you mean. Perhaps the 2.x API tables could be side by side to help that? > I wonder where the GTK logo proposal went? I think it would fit quite > well in this design. Actually Andreas was doing some work there. I was sent a few ideas and they looked good, but nothing further so far. -- Regards, Martyn ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: GTK+ Website Review
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:15 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: > * What are people's thoughts on the initial look and feel? It looks great, except for the FAQ. Can it be styled similarly to the rest of the site and include the navigation bar at the top? ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
