[ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Hey all, I'd just like to say (not that I have any sway in these matters) I strongly disagree with the decision to revert to Dapper artwork for Edgy. [If I have gotten the wrong impression about this please ignore the silly rant below] While I realise it might not meet the sabdfl's expectations or other Canonical management folk, and ultimately it is his distribution, I think that it is a bad idea to abandon the new, community driven, Edgy artwork. It's Edgy - that was meant to mean that dev's could put new, disruptive ideas into the distribution without fear that they may be a little rough around the edges. I think the same should apply to artwork - it was meant to be an experiment in community created artwork, and although it may be a little rough around the edges in places, I think the beta art and the implementations on the wiki *rock* In fact the sabd himself said [on the artwork] I'm sure there will be rough edges in Edgy - that's the point [1] The artwork may not fit with the 'brand' of Ubuntu as Canonical wants it, but you can't escape from the fact that the community *is* an essential part of the Ubuntu brand, and if you are trying to hide that, trying to make Ubuntu seem more professional, by rejecting community work to retain an image with certain (i.e. paying) customers, then I can't help but feel that Canonical are abandoning what makes Ubuntu so special to me and the many others who have contributed far more than me in making Ubuntu as sucessful as it is. I don't mean for this to sound like a paranoid rant, so now for some less emotional arguments... Many of the development changes in Edgy are 'under-the-hood' and not overly visible to users, and sticking with Dapper artwork will probably result higher unmet expectations of users as it is hard to see overly changes from Dapper, save possibly the *shiny* new usplash. Considering the vision of Edgy given by sabdfl included: So dream a little about Xen for virtualisation, Xgl/AIGLX and other wonderful wobbly window bits, the goodness of Network Manager, a first flirt with multiarch support for true mixed 32-bit and 64-bit computing on AMD64, the interesting possibilities of the SMART package manager... ... and as of these only AIGLX has been included in main, I believe to the issues raised by [2] in communicating release goals, will only be heightened by a lack of visual difference between Dapper and Edgy. [1] http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/48 [2] http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/50 Thanks, Mark -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
I fully agree with Mark. Why is the new artwork going to be removed anyway? I'd just like to say (not that I have any sway in these matters) I strongly disagree with the decision to revert to Dapper artwork for Edgy. [If I have gotten the wrong impression about this please ignore the silly rant below] -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
I really hope this is not the case. A lot of the new community artwork is very nice. I can understand non official artwork not being in the default settings. However please at least make some of it installed by default so there are a selection of community provided wallpapers, themes, icons, splashes and whatever for newly installed users to select from. Not a lot has to be added to give that feeling of added value a new user would feel when they start looking around. Not everybody wants to hit the package manager (or even knows such content is available there) for some wallpapers or some such frivolities. tonic On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 13:49 +0200, David Prieto wrote: I fully agree with Mark. Why is the new artwork going to be removed anyway? I'd just like to say (not that I have any sway in these matters) I strongly disagree with the decision to revert to Dapper artwork for Edgy. [If I have gotten the wrong impression about this please ignore the silly rant below] -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Will this be permanent ?If it is .. that would just suck..Cheers2006/10/12, tonic [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I really hope this is not the case. A lot of the new community artworkis very nice. I can understand non official artwork not being in thedefault settings. However please at least make some of it installed bydefault so there are a selection of community provided wallpapers, themes, icons, splashes and whatever for newly installed users to selectfrom. Not a lot has to be added to give that feeling of added value anew user would feel when they start looking around.Not everybody wants to hit the package manager (or even knows such content is available there) for some wallpapers or some suchfrivolities.tonicOn Thu, 2006-10-12 at 13:49 +0200, David Prieto wrote: I fully agree with Mark. Why is the new artwork going to be removed anyway? I'd just like to say (not that I have any sway in these matters) I strongly disagree with the decision to revert to Dapper artwork for Edgy. [If I have gotten the wrong impression about this please ignore the silly rant below]--ubuntu-art mailing listubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Welcome to the last-minute-rush we all enjoy since Dapper. For now, we must polish the dapper artwork for edgy. I suggest to add consistency to all that piece of artwork. The new usplash theme just added more inconsistency. That would be nice if we provide the **same** branding logo for usplash, gdm and gnome splash. According to sabdfl, gdm branding makes people happy (since hoary). We should use a similar version that fit 256 colors and use it for usplash and gnome splash. What about having real human gtk color in the usplash progressbar !? Étienne. -- Verso l'Alto ! signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Étienne Bersac wrote: Welcome to the last-minute-rush we all enjoy since Dapper. For now, we must polish the dapper artwork for edgy. I suggest to add consistency to all that piece of artwork. The new usplash theme just added more inconsistency. That would be nice if we provide the **same** branding logo for usplash, gdm and gnome splash. According to sabdfl, gdm branding makes people happy (since hoary). We should use a similar version that fit 256 colors and use it for usplash and gnome splash. What about having real human gtk color in the usplash progressbar !? Étienne. You be referring to my port of Dapper's usplash? Viper550 -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Reverting to Dapper would not be a great outcome - but it would be preferable to shipping with artwork that does not meet our standards. We've invested a huge amount of time and effort in the Edgy art community process, and thus far we don't have a final set of images that IMO cut the mustard. That's not a critique of the capabilities of any of the individual artists, just that we haven't pulled it all together as well as we hoped. So. I'm continuing to speak with the AiC and art community members (we have had a series of conference calls in recent days, trying to converge on a good looking result). I hope we can get a set that rocks in place, but I'm not going to delay Edgy for that. I'd rather use it as a learning experience than live with art that I don't think reflects the best of what we can do as a community. Mark -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Reverting to Dapper would not be a great outcome - but it would be preferable to shipping with artwork that does not meet our standards. We've invested a huge amount of time and effort in the Edgy art community process, and thus far we don't have a final set of images that IMO cut the mustard. That's not a critique of the capabilities of any of the individual artists, just that we haven't pulled it all together as well as we hoped. So. I'm continuing to speak with the AiC and art community members (we have had a series of conference calls in recent days, trying to converge on a good looking result). I hope we can get a set that rocks in place, but I'm not going to delay Edgy for that. I'd rather use it as a learning experience than live with art that I don't think reflects the best of what we can do as a community. Mark In the name of failsafe... http://bay01.imagebay.com/full_view.php?view=7947_ubuntu-glow-standard.jpg would this do? Viper550 -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
I have to say I strongly disagree: On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 17:46 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Reverting to Dapper would not be a great outcome - but it would be preferable to shipping with artwork that does not meet our standards. We've invested a huge amount of time and effort in the Edgy art community process, and thus far we don't have a final set of images that IMO cut the mustard. This second clause rather contradicts the first (in the second sentence). We have invested a huge amount of time, but you're still prepared to waste that when people have spent their own spare time, for free, on it? This just seems unprofessional and against the spirit of free software. That's not a critique of the capabilities of any of the individual artists, just that we haven't pulled it all together as well as we hoped. Surely this will let those hard-working souls down? It's pulled together incredibly well I feel, especially for a trial run in a very fresh community. It can only get better, and that is a wonderful thing. So. I'm continuing to speak with the AiC and art community members (we have had a series of conference calls in recent days, trying to converge on a good looking result). I hope we can get a set that rocks in place, but I'm not going to delay Edgy for that. I'd rather use it as a learning experience than live with art that I don't think reflects the best of what we can do as a community. You don't need to delay Edgy. I think most people would have agreed that the previous community set did indeed rock. Remember we had 4 months as opposed to six, and this is the first Edgy release after the LTS. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Toby Smithe wrote: This second clause rather contradicts the first (in the second sentence). We have invested a huge amount of time, but you're still prepared to waste that when people have spent their own spare time, for free, on it? I don't consider it a waste. We have all learned a lot about coordinating artwork. We've had no shortage of energy but a great shortage of direction and discipline. This just seems unprofessional and against the spirit of free software. No - unprofessional is missing all the agreed dates, and not pulling together as a team but instead having too many people pulling in too many directions. Before you react - consider for a moment that the REST of the distribution does not run that way. It could never be the tight, focused thing that it is if it did. It's up to the art team to rise to the level of the rest of the distro, not simply to assume that release management processes apply less strictly in the artwork department. It took several releases before the work of the doc team got directly baked into the distro, too. It's not unusual for us to have to figure out how a particular team works best. I think we've learned a lot in this round, it's in no sense wasted work, but if the results are either too late or not tight and polished enough we will stick with what we have. Mark -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Hi, Beware mark, you seems to forgot that a lot of people spent a lot of time in ubuntu artwork, especially in this edgy cycle. Kind regards, Étienne. -- Verso l'Alto ! signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
I sent this to sabdfl but no-one else. Here it is: I agree with your points. But most of the community (that is, real users using your distribution) seem to hate the decision: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=276048 On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 18:53 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Toby Smithe wrote: This second clause rather contradicts the first (in the second sentence). We have invested a huge amount of time, but you're still prepared to waste that when people have spent their own spare time, for free, on it? I don't consider it a waste. We have all learned a lot about coordinating artwork. We've had no shortage of energy but a great shortage of direction and discipline. This just seems unprofessional and against the spirit of free software. No - unprofessional is missing all the agreed dates, and not pulling together as a team but instead having too many people pulling in too many directions. True... I'll find a different word next time! :) Before you react - consider for a moment that the REST of the distribution does not run that way. Although coding is an art, this art is a different beast. What makes you think it should run /the same/? It could never be the tight, focused thing that it is if it did. It's up to the art team to rise to the level of the rest of the distro, not simply to assume that release management processes apply less strictly in the artwork department. And Ubuntu is indeed very tight and focused. I'd have it no other way, and it's one thing I congratulate the whole team on. It took several releases before the work of the doc team got directly baked into the distro, too. It's not unusual for us to have to figure out how a particular team works best. I think we've learned a lot in this round, it's in no sense wasted work, but if the results are either too late or not tight and polished enough we will stick with what we have. Wasted is something that has been made and not used. All the new (for Edgy) community artwork is wasted if you take my rather crude definition, and I think most people do. What's yours? -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Speaking as someone who is not a SABDFL , Not on the art-list, and just someone who wants to do more with Ubuntu.. It is unfortunate that the art isn't going to be ready. That said, it's only wasted if it's WASTED. That is, if it's completely thrown away without use. Now, Mark has spoken, and that's all good and fine, but might there be room for a compromise here? Perhaps the artwork will be ready shortly, but will miss the release of Edgy. Perhaps it could be offered as a package after release? If we're just talking artwork here, there is a minimum of testing that would need to take place. That said.. I work in a software development environment for my living. Whether or not art (we call it product labeling here) and coding should or shouldn't be run the same is irrelevant. The release is driven first by Time, second by Feature. We've already taken a hit on the release of Dapper, and to take a followup on the release of Edgy would be met with some skepticism. It is a sad fact of life that sometimes you work very hard on a project only to have someone come along and just deem it out for a given release due to the scope changing or the release date being immutable. Don't worry. Take it as a learning experience and move forward. Once Edgy is released, Edgy+1 is next.(Insert copious lobbying for Furious Ferret here) That's just the opinion of a user, It was free, and if you're upset by it, well.. ya get what you paid for :) Jarrod -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 19:12 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=276048 That's a very small sample size. Artwork is hard because it is displayed on literally millions of different screens, with millions of different tastes. Well, I challenge you to find a normal user of Ubuntu (perhaps take one thousand random forum members, at least), who thinks that the change isn't a recession. Even in that sample size, I'd doubt you'd fine a user who feels as strongly as you obviously do. Recession only leads to lost time fixing bug #1! Even a rough release will be better than any Windows release. Before you react - consider for a moment that the REST of the distribution does not run that way. Although coding is an art, this art is a different beast. What makes you think it should run /the same/? Perhaps its better to think of this as DESIGN rather than ART. I agree - art is a mysterious creative thing that is best left to people who immerse themselves in it uninterrupted by reality. But design is about visual and spatial engineering - creating things that are both beautiful and functional. We CAN expect design to be a disciplined professional process. Having said that there is absolutely room for innovation and experimentation. I would encourage everyone to draw up concepts and post them for discussion and comment because ideas or themes might well form the basis of the next wave of design. But the core process - the core responsibility of delivering imagery for *the next release* needs to be done according to the schedule set during the planning conference at the beginning of the release cycle. If you read that document (have you?) you'll see that the art team leads explicitly set their own, personalised deadlines that are in sync with those of the distro. It's not /the same/ it's an appropriate set of deadlines that were a good plan - and it was not followed. I'm not sure as to which document you refer, so I can't really see the deadlines. Otherwise, I'd read it like a shot. As a result - late night and early morning phone calls and emails from the team leads trying to get this done. If it works, then perhaps this is how the team works. I completely understand this leave-it-to-the-last-minute-for-perfection mentality, and it hasn't failed me yet, even if it's not the best method (which I am sure as hell it isn't!). We are still trying, I attach a mockup of what Frank, Who and Jmak are working on. I'm not going to comment on this further - it's better for me to put energy into the actual release, I hope you understand. OK. But, without trying to sound nasty here, I believe this is because you don't want to be won over! ;-) The release wouldn't be seen to many as an improvement on Dapper if it doesn't have *some* new artwork! I know it is, as I have followed ubuntu-devel and the commit list quite closely; but others won't. Why should the average user time his boot-up? Wasted is something that has been made and not used. All the new (for Edgy) community artwork is wasted if you take my rather crude definition, and I think most people do. What's yours? Only 1 image can be the final desktop, would you consider all the others (tens, hundreds of them) wasted? I don't think so. I would if not one was chosen. I'm sure the hundreds are all revisions, and there the fact that there are that many suggests near perfection to me. That many people can't have got it wrong, no? I've been asking for some time now for art.ubuntu.com to be restored so that community contributed art can have a home for public exchange and enjoyment and discussion. That way, all the artistic energy of this community can be published and people can use the art they like best. PLEASE would someone step up to make that happen! This is not the matter at hand. art.ubuntu.com won't help us fix the Edgy works for 26/10. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
On 10/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking as someone who is not a SABDFL , Not on the art-list, and just someone who wants to do more with Ubuntu.. It is unfortunate that the art isn't going to be ready. That said, it's only wasted if it's WASTED. That is, if it's completely thrown away without use. Now, Mark has spoken, and that's all good and fine, but might there be room for a compromise here? Perhaps the artwork will be ready shortly, but will miss the release of Edgy. Perhaps it could be offered as a package after release? If we're just talking artwork here, there is a minimum of testing that would need to take place. Umm no. Maybe offer it as optional, but not as default. Why? Screenshots. Documentation, including the official stuff and books have already taken their screenshots. Changing the artwork then looks bad and confuses users, plus it makes the book/documentation look unprofessional. Corey -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
On 10/12/06, Mark Shuttleworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read that document (have you?) you'll see that the art team leads explicitly set their own, personalised deadlines that are in sync with those of the distro. It's not /the same/ it's an appropriate set of deadlines that were a good plan - and it was not followed. As a result - late night and early morning phone calls and emails from the team leads trying to get this done. Yes - because the art work hasn't been a last second, deadline missing thing in the last four releases has it? To blame the community process for failures which have happened in all the other releases is a bit disingenuous, although accept you were trying to avoid this by setting up a formal process. Anyway, I understand you don't want to waste time on this further, so thanks for clearing up your decision. I still suggest that artwork which doesn't meet your expectations is better than retaining the same artwork as Dapper resulting in a peoples expectations for radical change in Edgy being dashed further. Thanks, Mark Thanks, Mark -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 18:30 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Corey (and all) That makes good sense. It was just a suggestion. We do know that Edgy is coming at us fast and that it's not sliding. Perhaps an optional pack could be in order for the WIP, and sort of use that to springboard into discussions about future looks of Ubuntu? I believe that this will cause the last-minute-rush to lose momentum! Keep up to amazing work everyone; don't be discouraged by a stupid decision! -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 19:29 +0100, m c wrote: On 10/12/06, Mark Shuttleworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read that document (have you?) you'll see that the art team leads explicitly set their own, personalised deadlines that are in sync with those of the distro. It's not /the same/ it's an appropriate set of deadlines that were a good plan - and it was not followed. As a result - late night and early morning phone calls and emails from the team leads trying to get this done. Yes - because the art work hasn't been a last second, deadline missing thing in the last four releases has it? To blame the community process for failures which have happened in all the other releases is a bit disingenuous, although accept you were trying to avoid this by setting up a formal process. Anyway, I understand you don't want to waste time on this further, so thanks for clearing up your decision. I still suggest that artwork which doesn't meet your expectations is better than retaining the same artwork as Dapper resulting in a peoples expectations for radical change in Edgy being dashed further. You may understand, but there's obviously no point in trying to sway the decision. This community-driven distribution (Debian based, is it not?), is completely and utterly totalitarian. I thought the term dictator was benevolent! Obviously the merit of the old artwork set has not won the -ocracy. Or was it ever this way? Why should the decision of a small set of people (the few people with power) mean a recession for a much larger set. The survey on the Ubuntu Forums was obviously a larger set than those making the decision, and so set sizes can be discounted when talking in terms of opinion, as it is obvious that the majority of people do not agree with the choice. I'm very sorry to see it has come to that. Perhaps I won't congratulate the team on release date, as I promised myself I would do, for bringing to us such a wonderful distribution. This is not the Art team's fault, in any way. This was Edgy, was it not? So far, as has been previously mentioned, only one of the initial goals (when looking at the original announcement) has been met. And I have seen sabdfl's blog post on the announcement... -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
On 10/12/06, Toby Smithe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] You may understand, but there's obviously no point in trying to sway the decision. This community-driven distribution (Debian based, is it not?), is completely and utterly totalitarian. I thought the term dictator was benevolent! Obviously the merit of the old artwork set has not won the -ocracy. Or was it ever this way? There are a number of situations where having someone in charge who is able to make a final decision is a good thing, certainly artwork where everyone has an opinion is a case of this, and such lack of central power has often been seen as Debian's (for example) biggest weaknesses. Why should the decision of a small set of people (the few people with power) mean a recession for a much larger set. The survey on the Ubuntu Forums was obviously a larger set than those making the decision, and so set sizes can be discounted when talking in terms of opinion, as it is obvious that the majority of people do not agree with the choice. I'm very sorry to see it has come to that. Perhaps I won't congratulate the team on release date, as I promised myself I would do, for bringing to us such a wonderful distribution. This is not the Art team's fault, in any way. The decision is ultimately Mark's, and I am happy for him to take it in whatever way he sees fit as long as he has listened to and thought about rationally argued opposite arguments and suggestions from the community, which i believe he has done. Whether this undermines the community spirit of Ubuntu is again an issue I'm sure Mark doesn't take lightly. (Of course he is still wrong :p) This was Edgy, was it not? So far, as has been previously mentioned, only one of the initial goals (when looking at the original announcement) has been met. And I have seen sabdfl's blog post on the announcement... Those were not really the initial goals for Edgy, but examples the sabd was citing as reflecting the overall vision and possible ways forward. A large number of revolutionary (30 year of linux history!), funky and *shiny* new features have been put in. My point was merely that many of these are not visible to the end user, so there is a difference in appearances and expectations in the minds of many users, which not chaning the artwork certainly doesn't help. Thanks, Mark -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
In hopes of encouraging people, I want to speak up on this. *** The following is my personal opinion, not necessarily the opinion of my employer. *** I can say with a great deal of confidence that Mark did not want to use the same look as dapper. This is not because I have some special communication channel with Mark, but because of the encouragement and effort he invested over the last few months. When I was hired by Canonical in July, just after the Dapper launch, I talked to both Jane and Mark. Because I am a member of the art team and because working with artists is something I like, I spoke with both of them about it. From both people, the word was that, prior to Dapper, the art team was just a bunch of people who happened to like art or the aesthetics of Ubuntu and had a desire to help out. However, as fun as that is, that type of group cannot have a serious impact on the final outcome of Ubuntu. Instead, it was the desire of both Jane and Mark, and presumably others who I didn't talk to, that the art-team would morph into a powerful force of not only interested artists, but driven and motivated contributors who could adopt the development cycle and techniques of the rest of the Ubuntu developers to create polished and complete themes for future releases. You can talk to Ken and Troy S as well as Frank about this and I think they will agree. Back in July, the goal was that the process would be refined and perfected. The hope was that it could get done soon enough for a contribution to Edgy, but there was no promise. I spent a few days in the London office working with Mark and not once while I was there did I see him eat babies or kill kittens. He is driven and intense but he doesn't take joy in watching others suffer. Realize that Mark's reputation and image are reflected in Ubuntu. Like you, he does not want to settle for good enough because that doesn't characterize him. He wants excellence and he feels that it is worth waiting for. Both Jane and Mark compared the art team to the doc team. Keep in mind that I'm still talking about July, not present. They said when the doc team started it wasn't very effective. Then, something happened, and the team got organized and got together. They started adopting the processes that made other Ubuntu developers successful and now they are the model for other teams to follow. Mark mentioned in a recent e-mail to this list that he hopes it will happen here as well. I can understand everyone's disappointment, but remember, we're still at step 1; the goal here is not to produce wicked art, the goal here is to develop a wicked team. To me, it looks like we're making tremendous progress. -- Matthew Nuzum newz2000 on freenode -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
Hi, The screenshot you provide is really nice. why don't use it instead of switching back to dapper ? Étienne. -- Verso l'Alto ! signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
There is no need to abandon the work. We can definitely do a release of a best of community artwork (it doesn't have to be default, but it would be nice to have it default available at least - I'll give a use case after this paragraph). In no way can we make the dudes running this show use our artwork, but we can find ways to get it out there and polish the Ubuntu art community in the process. Rough and ready use case for a Best Of community artwork: Joe installs and boots up Ubuntu Linux. He finds the desktops 'look and feel' quaint but wishes he could try out some looks in the same theme but a different style without having to go look for them. I am not sure how you have been doing things around here since I am new. I would appreciate it if I could be filled in, or be pointed to some wiki page that will tell all :) . Also, do you have a code of best practise for producing art? An example in regards to wallpapers would be: Wallpapers must be available in 4:3(standard) and 16:10(widescreen) aspect ratios. However when producing the widescreen version it is best to create an extremely similar image that is better suited to that aspect ratio than to crop or scale the current work. Finally, it would be nice to see which elements of the Ubuntu art must relate or conform to each other. e.g. Usplash themes would have to be consistent in layout with the GDM theme, but the widgets used be consistent with the Ubuntu GTK theme. This would make it easy to create and evaluate art. It also helps in keeping an eye on changes that would need to flow on. If you decide to change direction with the GDM theme, it will have implications for the Usplash theme. well, that is probably enough of a yarn for now. Either I am barking up the wrong tree or... not :) tonic On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 17:35 +0200, Nicolas DERIVE wrote: I agree too with Mark, it is a very great pity to give up all of this work. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Reversion to Dapper Artwork
On 10/12/06, tonic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no need to abandon the work. We can definitely do a release of a best of community artwork (it doesn't have to be default, but it would be nice to have it default available at least - I'll give a use case after this paragraph). In no way can we make the dudes running this show use our artwork, but we can find ways to get it out there and polish the Ubuntu art community in the process. Sounds great, but I _think_ we're too late to have it in main... However, there are the 'theme team themes' which I believe have made it in (to main..) which should provide a nice variation for those who want to try a new look and are community developed. Perhaps these should be highlighted somewhere on the release notes as a way to make people who feel the look is not sufficiently 'new' for them feel catered for/make them aware of them- it is one of the things that the community has worked really well to achieve and that we should be proud of :) Also, do you have a code of best practise for producing art? An example in regards to wallpapers would be: Wallpapers must be available in 4:3(standard) and 16:10(widescreen) aspect ratios. However when producing the widescreen version it is best to create an extremely similar image that is better suited to that aspect ratio than to crop or scale the current work. Finally, it would be nice to see which elements of the Ubuntu art must relate or conform to each other. e.g. Usplash themes would have to be consistent in layout with the GDM theme, but the widgets used be consistent with the Ubuntu GTK theme. This would make it easy to create and evaluate art. It also helps in keeping an eye on changes that would need to flow on. If you decide to change direction with the GDM theme, it will have implications for the Usplash theme. You're asking the right questions! We desperately need _clear_ guidelines like these to avoid the issue we have now where so much work has been done but not enough of it conforms to the standards that Mark needs for Ubuntu to be perfect. I hope this will be a key part of the process for Edgy+1 - stick around and help us out :) Who -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
[ubuntu-art] Moving on
You're asking the right questions! We desperately need _clear_ guidelines like these to avoid the issue we have now where so much work has been done but not enough of it conforms to the standards that Mark needs for Ubuntu to be perfect. I hope this will be a key part of the process for Edgy+1 - stick around and help us out :) I'd love to help, here are some of my ideas. How about we start up two projects. The first ( art.ubuntu.org ) has already been mentioned. I would see this as being something like art.gnome.org . It would need to be a meeting place for artists and users alike. If people are worried about quality on such a service it would be possible to implement some form of a review system. The goal of such a system would be to, keep art standards high (no unfinished works), give feedback to the artists, maintain site navigability through quality metadata (if you like this, you may also enjoy these similar pieces of art... - tagged: Ubuntu, Human) supplied by reviewers, artists and users, and give us something else to read and waste our precious time :) A practical result of an art.ubuntu.org (if it succeeds) would be to provide Ubuntu development with an already present pool of ideas and artists to draw from. The second project would be a continuation of this (guess that means it has also been mentioned previously (; ). As I see it you might not get the same people all the way through a project like this. But if you work at it and keep all the work done transparent the project can carry forward the ideas people leave in passing. To get this happening you need to be clear on the goals of the project and how to go about it. Also the environment needs to be clearly stated so that everybody particpating knows the rules. I would never have thought of changes in art causing a problem with documentation. These sort of things need to be written down and publicised in some manner, hence my asking about a code of best practise (or somesuch). tonic -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] On the day it reverted...
PS: The design that ended up being in there has very little to do with my personal aesthetic. I simply tried to take what I believed Ubuntu was based on its connotations, existing loose brown tone, and guesswork to devise _something_ that felt Ubuntu. Again, without a clear design specification, colour palette, etc., it was all guesswork. Aesthetics aside, the design attempted to meet the loose specifications from the onset _and_ correct some of the issues that I _personally_ thought were present in Ubuntu's look. Well said. And this is why I suggested before and do it again that unless we set up a model of production process based on a model of a graphic agency the kind of problems we are experiencing now, will persist. If you have ever worked in a graphic agency or a printing office you know that in these businesses, before an actual project starts, all parameters are sketched out and written down right to the smallest details; things like fonts, colors, (two colors, four colors, spot colors), paper stock usage, the amount of images used, the basic layout of the composition and so on. When the client agree to all the conditions the contract is signed and the work begins. After that date there is no changes possible (of course, minor adjustments can always be incorporated). The point is that in a professional environment a project cannot be based on guesswork. When the production starts designers have all the necessary parameters right down to the smallest details that is necessary to finish a project successfully. This is a time tested business scheme and I think we should adopt it in the next development phase. Otherwise, we will end up again in this last minutes chaotic rush that will satisfy no one. Jmak -- http://jozmak.googlepages.com/ -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
