Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 17:11 -0800, Merk wrote: The Ubuntu Title Font is available on sites like dafont.com http://www.dafont.com/ubuntu-title.font There are 2 and this is the better one: http://betatype.com/node/36 -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 16:24 -0800, Chris Tooley wrote: [snip] You should also consider whether this implies microsoft word to your average user. I would go one step further: does this imply word processing document to the average user and does it tell him how it will be handled when they double click on such a file? Only if they can associate it with MS Word, know what MS Word is, understand that it is a word processing package and that on Ubuntu word processing is done by OpenOffice Writer. So you rely on quite a few associations. I think the icon should convey two things: 1. it is a word processing document that will be handled by OO Writer 2. it is a different file format from a .odt file and for those who know and are interested in the difference, it is an MS Word file So what about something like a customized .odt icon that uses the MS Word blue colour scheme and has a superimposed W on top? My £0.02 Bruno -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
It has too do with the law, Apple is much more of a social company then Microsoft. Think apple putted on a flexible license. (like CC/GPL/APSL) I think the last one is apple used. Microsoft I pretty sure they not. On 16 February 2010 20:39, Merk merkin...@hotmail.com wrote: So I see a lot of nice changes with the humanity icon update. However the icons for .doc, .xls etc are really bothersome. The icons are blatantly ripped off the OSX version of Office. Why? I can understand having a W be pronounced in the icon for .doc like all versions of word, but why make the W exactly like that in the OSX version? Most people coming to Ubuntu would be coming from Windows if anything. I removed the Mac OS X Word W and replaced it simply with the Ubuntu Title Font and already find it an improvement http://old.nabble.com/file/p27613841/humanity.png Current Humanity .doc file http://old.nabble.com/file/p27613841/humanity2.png Slight change to Humanity .doc file -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/.doc%2C-.xls%2C-etc-icons-in-Humanity-Update-tp27613841p27613841.html Sent from the ubuntu-art mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- J.D. Jungschlager Telephone: +31647843040 -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. Joeri Jungschlager wrote: It has too do with the law, Apple is much more of a social company then Microsoft. Think apple putted on a flexible license. (like CC/GPL/APSL) I think the last one is apple used. Microsoft I pretty sure they not. On 16 February 2010 20:39, Merk merkin...@hotmail.com wrote: So I see a lot of nice changes with the humanity icon update. However the icons for .doc, .xls etc are really bothersome. The icons are blatantly ripped off the OSX version of Office. Why? I can understand having a W be pronounced in the icon for .doc like all versions of word, but why make the W exactly like that in the OSX version? Most people coming to Ubuntu would be coming from Windows if anything. I removed the Mac OS X Word W and replaced it simply with the Ubuntu Title Font and already find it an improvement http://old.nabble.com/file/p27613841/humanity.png Current Humanity .doc file http://old.nabble.com/file/p27613841/humanity2.png Slight change to Humanity .doc file -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/.doc%2C-.xls%2C-etc-icons-in-Humanity-Update-tp27613841p27613841.html Sent from the ubuntu-art mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- J.D. Jungschlager Telephone: +31647843040 -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/.doc%2C-.xls%2C-etc-icons-in-Humanity-Update-tp27613841p27625636.html Sent from the ubuntu-art mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable to use the w of Ms Word for OOo Word Processor, the p of Ms Powerpoint for OOo impress etc. The proper color -- blue for the word processor, orange for impress, green for calc -- together with an explicit icon is far sufficient in my opinion. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
MAC USERS may expect that exact icon, not Windows users. Since we can't satisfy both exactly, we should satisfy both roughly. By that I mean the 'visual metaphor' should be Blue W for Word, Green X for Excel, etc. Not Stylized and gel-like font in perspective only present in the Mac version of Office Kenneth Wimer-5 wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/.doc%2C-.xls%2C-etc-icons-in-Humanity-Update-tp27613841p27626070.html Sent from the ubuntu-art mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
I made another using the upper case of that font. http://old.nabble.com/file/p27626085/humanity-msword2.svg humanity-msword2.svg Thorsten Wilms wrote: On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 17:11 -0800, Merk wrote: The Ubuntu Title Font is available on sites like dafont.com http://www.dafont.com/ubuntu-title.font There are 2 and this is the better one: http://betatype.com/node/36 -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/.doc%2C-.xls%2C-etc-icons-in-Humanity-Update-tp27613841p27626085.html Sent from the ubuntu-art mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable Thats really awesome. :) Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining about the icon ;) to use the w of Ms Word for OOo Word Processor, the p of Ms Powerpoint for OOo impress etc. The proper color -- blue for the word processor, orange for impress, green for calc -- together with an explicit icon is far sufficient in my opinion. -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable Thats really awesome. :) Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining about the icon ;) Those filetypes are supported by OOo. No need to associate them to icons referencing to Ms applications not supported under Linux. As far as I know, there is no reference to Adobe in the pdf files icons. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:18 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable Thats really awesome. :) Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining about the icon ;) Those filetypes are supported by OOo. No need to associate them to icons referencing to Ms applications not supported under Linux. The icon is used only when someone is saving the file to be MS office complaint. Why cant we stop using that format , rather than nit-pick over what one has just chosen to continue to support? As far as I know, there is no reference to Adobe in the pdf files icons. I'd suggest you check again ;) -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, François Degrave wrote: Vishnoo a écrit : On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:18 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable Thats really awesome. :) Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining about the icon ;) Those filetypes are supported by OOo. No need to associate them to icons referencing to Ms applications not supported under Linux. The icon is used only when someone is saving the file to be MS office complaint. Why cant we stop using that format , rather than nit-pick over what one has just chosen to continue to support? As far as I know, there is no reference to Adobe in the pdf files icons. I'd suggest you check again ;) Ok well, you are right. And that is basically... lame. Evince is the default PDF reader, why should the icon be related to Adobe? There is a difference between PDF and Adobe / Evince. :) PDF is an _open_ Portable Document Format. and the logo isnt even been used in full. ;) Adobe is a company with several apps and Reader , Acrobat is the pdf reader and editor respectively. Note the adobe logo isnt used. Their logo is different. Evince is an app too and not a format ... Even under MacOSX the pdf files icons have no reference to the Adobe brand, -- Cheers, Vish -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
[ubuntu-art] Re : .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, François Degrave wrote: Vishnoo a écrit : On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:18 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable Thats really awesome. :) Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining about the icon ;) Those filetypes are supported by OOo. No need to associate them to icons referencing to Ms applications not supported under Linux. The icon is used only when someone is saving the file to be MS office complaint. Why cant we stop using that format , rather than nit-pick over what one has just chosen to continue to support? As far as I know, there is no reference to Adobe in the pdf files icons. I'd suggest you check again ;) Ok well, you are right. And that is basically... lame. Evince is the default PDF reader, why should the icon be related to Adobe? There is a difference between PDF and Adobe / Evince. :) PDF is an _open_ Portable Document Format. and the logo isnt even been used in full. ;) Adobe is a company with several apps and Reader , Acrobat is the pdf reader and editor respectively. Note the adobe logo isnt used. Their logo is different. Evince is an app too and not a format ... Ok sorry obviously you widely misunderstood my point, maybe I was not clear enough in my previous mail. Of course, the icon for the pdf *filetype* is a reference to adobe; it is red/white with a big A in it -- see attached. That is not acceptable (nor is it to put a ms word or ms powerpoint logo in a *filetype* icon). The only thing the user has to know is that it is a pdf file, period. In MacOsX, the icon is like that (ok that's a .ps here, but it's the same for .pdf): http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/docs/openoffice-mac/temp-ps-file.png Do you see a reference to Adobe Reader? No of course, because it is not the default reader. Putting a reference to Adobe makes the user think it will open with Adobe when double-clicking on the file. The problem is the same for the psd file icon (attached): why putting a Photoshop logo? The user only has to know it is an image, with the psd extension. The photoshop logo is a nonsense here. (You can try asking the evince developers if they think it is a good idea to have icons for *pdf filetype* referencing to Adobe by default in Ubuntu, I'm pretty sure what the answer will be. Same with OpenOffice developers and doc, xls and ppt files icons.) Cheers, François inline: gnome-mime-application-pdf.svginline: gnome-mime-image-x-psd.svg-- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
[ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, François Degrave wrote: Vishnoo a écrit : On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:18 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable Thats really awesome. :) Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining about the icon ;) Those filetypes are supported by OOo. No need to associate them to icons referencing to Ms applications not supported under Linux. The icon is used only when someone is saving the file to be MS office complaint. Why cant we stop using that format , rather than nit-pick over what one has just chosen to continue to support? As far as I know, there is no reference to Adobe in the pdf files icons. I'd suggest you check again ;) Ok well, you are right. And that is basically... lame. Evince is the default PDF reader, why should the icon be related to Adobe? There is a difference between PDF and Adobe / Evince. :) PDF is an _open_ Portable Document Format. and the logo isnt even been used in full. ;) Adobe is a company with several apps and Reader , Acrobat is the pdf reader and editor respectively. Note the adobe logo isnt used. Their logo is different. Evince is an app too and not a format ... Ok sorry obviously you widely misunderstood my point, maybe I was not clear enough in my previous mail. Of course, the icon for the pdf *filetype* is a reference to adobe; it is red/white with a big A in it -- see attached. That is not acceptable (nor is it to put a ms word or ms powerpoint logo in a *filetype* icon). The only thing the user has to know is that it is a pdf file, period. In MacOsX, the icon is like that (ok that's a .ps here, but it's the same for .pdf): http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/docs/openoffice-mac/temp-ps-file.png Do you see a reference to Adobe Reader? No of course, because it is not the default reader. Putting a reference to Adobe makes the user think it will open with Adobe when double-clicking on the file. The problem is the same for the psd file icon (attached): why putting a Photoshop logo? The user only has to know it is an image, with the psd extension. The photoshop logo is a nonsense here. (You can try asking the evince developers if they think it is a good idea to have icons for *pdf filetype* referencing to Adobe by default in Ubuntu, I'm pretty sure what the answer will be. Same with OpenOffice developers and doc, xls and ppt files icons.) Cheers, François In short there shouldn't be in ANY icon of ANY filetype whatsoever that carries a reference to an *app which is not installed on the system*. inline: gnome-mime-application-pdf.svginline: gnome-mime-image-x-psd.svg-- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 05:04:46 pm Merk wrote: MAC USERS may expect that exact icon, not Windows users. Since we can't satisfy both exactly, we should satisfy both roughly. By that I mean the 'visual metaphor' should be Blue W for Word, Green X for Excel, etc. Not Stylized and gel-like font in perspective only present in the Mac version of Office Kenneth Wimer-5 wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) Right, put that way, I see your point ;) I'm just against changing something most people recognize just to be different. Ideally, we'd be able to ship our mimetype sheet with an original logo but alas, that ain't gonna happen. -- Ken -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 06:17:12 pm Vishnoo wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, François Degrave wrote: Vishnoo a écrit : On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:18 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type of file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) -- Ken Ok but it feels uncomfortable Thats really awesome. :) Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining about the icon ;) Those filetypes are supported by OOo. No need to associate them to icons referencing to Ms applications not supported under Linux. The icon is used only when someone is saving the file to be MS office complaint. Why cant we stop using that format , rather than nit-pick over what one has just chosen to continue to support? As far as I know, there is no reference to Adobe in the pdf files icons. I'd suggest you check again ;) Ok well, you are right. And that is basically... lame. Evince is the default PDF reader, why should the icon be related to Adobe? There is a difference between PDF and Adobe / Evince. :) PDF is an _open_ Portable Document Format. and the logo isnt even been used in full. ;) Adobe is a company with several apps and Reader , Acrobat is the pdf reader and editor respectively. Note the adobe logo isnt used. Their logo is different. Evince is an app too and not a format ... Even under MacOSX the pdf files icons have no reference to the Adobe brand, I think this is (mainly) due to the differences that Apple and Adobe have had. In the past I have had problems using Adobe's PDF logo in another icon set I worked on. They contacted us and told us to change it. It is a slippery slope, you want to make it recognizable but yet different enough to avoid legal problems. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Icon_Design has some valuable info, specifically http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/MimeType_Icons -- Ken -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Re : .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update
The problem is the same for the psd file icon (attached): why putting a Photoshop logo? The user only has to know it is an image, with the psd extension. The photoshop logo is a nonsense here. I was under the impression that a PSD file was a PhotoShop Document. Is this not a proprietary format? As for the mime-type icons, I'm rather of the impression that using the text PSD or DOC in the thumbnail is best - most people will understand the meaning - and it's consistent and easy to implement. Colouring can imply a specific application or association, and give more differentiation amongst mime types if needed.. Just my two cents :) -Chris -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
