Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Justin Gruenberg]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Steph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * The animated, "live" wallpaper : [. . .]

Do people really have their desktop visible that often?  I think the
idea is neat for a default theme, but it has to be dependent on
minimal effect on resources.

>
> * Organisation : As you said, there's a great lack of organisation in this
> list. We don't have any art tracker or anything (what has be done of
> art.ubuntu.com, it's been months since I'me waiting?). But we have the
> Ubuntu Wiki, indeed, wich is actually a very good place to share ideas and
> show the progress of each team.

In the 8.04 release cycle, I mostly lurked around (I'm an engineer,
not an artist--I'm not going to be the one to design the new default
theme).  There is one thing that is obvious:  this effort needs better
structured leadership and process.

[ . . . ]

> The a first proposition for Intrepix : what about increasing the size of
> both gnome panels ? The default, lowest size is 24 pixels, and setting it at
> 32px produces a much pleasing effect. A pleasing desktop shouldn't force
> user to squint to see what's written. Those who have a bad vision would be
> glad. Technically, I don't know if this increase of panel size causes some
> problems with window display, if anybody can tell me more about this...And
> then, we should __definitely__ find a gnome panel background, or anything
> but delete this stupid grey color.

Thats a lot of whitespace.  If I had a huge LCD, I'd be inclined to
agree with you.  But on my laptop, that's a pretty significant amount
of real estate.

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Kenneth Wimer]

On Wednesday 30 April 2008 12:01:46 Steph wrote:
> Álvaro wrote :
> > I'm not agree with making the panel bigger. Gnome has a problem with
> > upper panel, with large screens becomes unusable (it has a lot of unused
> > space). So in my opinion we should keep ubuntu panel in 24px.
>
> In this case, shouldn't we ask for a bugfix ? I mean, for us small screens
> users :), it gives Ubuntu a better look, much more modern. Seen Vista ?
> Icons default size is 128*128 I think, and many users have complained
> because this was really TOO large. Increasing from 6 pixels the upper
> gnome-panel would be enough. Can you post a screenshot so that we see this
> bug ?

I think that the default size of the panel is not directly an issue for the 
art team. It would be better to talk to usability people.

--
Ken

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Who]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Álvaro Medina Ballester
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Snip preceeding conversation
> I'm not agree with making the panel bigger. Gnome has a problem with upper
> panel, with large screens becomes unusable (it has a lot of unused space).
> So in my opinion we should keep ubuntu panel in 24px.
>

I agree that we _should not_ increase the panel size. We already have
48 pixels taken up by panel - which is loads.

If someone can show that we have a usability issue with the panels, or
that small panels are intrinsically less aesthetically pleasing then I
might change my opinion.

Until,things like the status bar, for example, work better with a
wider panel, we have to stay at 24px too.

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Steph]

Álvaro wrote :

> I'm not agree with making the panel bigger. Gnome has a problem with upper
> panel, with large screens becomes unusable (it has a lot of unused space).
> So in my opinion we should keep ubuntu panel in 24px.


In this case, shouldn't we ask for a bugfix ? I mean, for us small screens
users :), it gives Ubuntu a better look, much more modern. Seen Vista ?
Icons default size is 128*128 I think, and many users have complained
because this was really TOO large. Increasing from 6 pixels the upper
gnome-panel would be enough. Can you post a screenshot so that we see this
bug ?
-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Jussi Kekkonen]

I know this is stupid but, do user need full width panel, not to
mention TWO of them... oh well :)

2008/4/30, sylvain marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dou you want the Bubuntu panel ?
>
> 2008/4/29 Sumit Agarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Steph wrote:
> >
> >
> > * The animated, "live" wallpaper : it'a good idea, as long as it doesn't
> > use more than 5% of CPU or GPU (better), and if this is realized, we have
> to
> > check if it's really that eye pleasant. Animation is cool, yes, but really
> unobtrusive.
> > We could try to reproduce a feature of the  Sony Ericsson
> >
> S500I
> >
> phone,
> > wich changes its wallpaper along the day. My girlfriend has one, it's
> really
> > beautiful, and not stressing at all
> >
> >
> > The a first proposition for Intrepix : what about increasing the size of
> > both gnome panels ? The default, lowest size is 24 pixels, and setting it
> at
> > 32px produces a much pleasing effect. A pleasing desktop shouldn't force
> > user to squint to see what's written. Those who have a bad vision would be
> > glad. Technically, I don't know if this increase of panel size causes some
> > problems with window display, if anybody can tell me more about this...And
> > then, we should __definitely__ find a gnome panel background, or anything
> > but delete this stupid grey color.
> >
> >
> > 5% CPU utilization is too high, in my opinion. GPU certainly would be much
> > better. Remember that more and more people are using Ubuntu on laptops,
> and
> > even desktop users are becoming concerned about energy usage. For these
> > reasons whatever dynamic desktop solution we have must not interfere with
> > the CPU going into power-saving cycles. Even a very mild constant CPU load
> > keeps the CPU awake much more than is necessary.
> >
> > I do agree on making the panel (yes, singular) bigger. And, as you might
> > also assume, I am for eliminating one of the panels. The top panel in
> > particular has lots of wasted space. We need to find an acceptable way to
> > either 1) combine both  panels or 2) make proper use of the top panel. The
> > only sensible use I can find for the top panel is for it to assume menubar
> > functions from GTK apps (a la Mac style). Of course, this is far from
> > universal in the Linux world and would break in such common apps as
> Firefox
> > and OpenOffice.
> >
> > My vote is for a larger singular panel.
> >
> > -Sumit
> >
> > --
> > ubuntu-art mailing list
> > ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
> >
> >
>


-- 
Jussi Kekkonen

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[sylvain marc]

Dou you want the Bubuntu panel ?

2008/4/29 Sumit Agarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Steph wrote:
>
>
> * The animated, "live" wallpaper : it'a good idea, as long as it doesn't
> use more than 5% of CPU or GPU (better), and if this is realized, we have to
> check if it's really that eye pleasant. Animation is cool, yes, but really 
> unobtrusive.
> We could try to reproduce a feature of the  Sony Ericsson
> S500I
> phone,
> wich changes its wallpaper along the day. My girlfriend has one, it's really
> beautiful, and not stressing at all
>
>
> The a first proposition for Intrepix : what about increasing the size of
> both gnome panels ? The default, lowest size is 24 pixels, and setting it at
> 32px produces a much pleasing effect. A pleasing desktop shouldn't force
> user to squint to see what's written. Those who have a bad vision would be
> glad. Technically, I don't know if this increase of panel size causes some
> problems with window display, if anybody can tell me more about this...And
> then, we should __definitely__ find a gnome panel background, or anything
> but delete this stupid grey color.
>
>
> 5% CPU utilization is too high, in my opinion. GPU certainly would be much
> better. Remember that more and more people are using Ubuntu on laptops, and
> even desktop users are becoming concerned about energy usage. For these
> reasons whatever dynamic desktop solution we have must not interfere with
> the CPU going into power-saving cycles. Even a very mild constant CPU load
> keeps the CPU awake much more than is necessary.
>
> I do agree on making the panel (yes, singular) bigger. And, as you might
> also assume, I am for eliminating one of the panels. The top panel in
> particular has lots of wasted space. We need to find an acceptable way to
> either 1) combine both  panels or 2) make proper use of the top panel. The
> only sensible use I can find for the top panel is for it to assume menubar
> functions from GTK apps (a la Mac style). Of course, this is far from
> universal in the Linux world and would break in such common apps as Firefox
> and OpenOffice.
>
> My vote is for a larger singular panel.
>
> -Sumit
>
> --
> ubuntu-art mailing list
> ubuntu-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] Intrepid Panels

[Álvaro Medina Ballester]

I'm not agree with making the panel bigger. Gnome has a problem with upper
panel, with large screens becomes unusable (it has a lot of unused space).
So in my opinion we should keep ubuntu panel in 24px.

2008/4/29 Dylan McCall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I entirely agree that something other than Nautilus could handle the
> desktop background. It has always been odd to me how that is the case
> now, and I bet if we had another, simpler program do it, the
> background could load in much more happily than it does now.
> (Furthermore, fancy visual effects for the wallpaper would not add
> unnecessary dependencies to the file manager).
>
> However, numerous issues with that being a Compiz plugin:
> -Not everyone needs, wants or can have Compiz. (It also has a lot of
> usability issues compared to Metacity).
> -The Window Manager drawing an image to the background... Am I the
> only one who finds the thought gross? That's like the kernel handling
> a window system, a VGA cable used for audio, or a rhinoceros that
> thinks it's a pterodactyl.
> -Compiz is not the only thing that can do visual effects. The point of
> a compositing window manager is to enable fancier visual effects for
> the applications using it (eg: rgba instead of rgb), not to dominate
> the role of generating visuals. A window manager should be focusing
> entirely on placing and organizing windows in a standard way that
> enhances usability in the realm of keeping things organized. Perhaps
> it should be looked at this way: A window manager should be portable.
> Most platforms have some visible program handling the wallpaper, such
> as their file browser. Bad things happen when the window manager
> suddenly decides that it, too, should handle the wallpaper -- namely,
> loss of platform neutrality.
>
> Having said that, the changing wallpapers are working fine for me over
> here, I guess partly because I am not staring at them intently. I
> prefer the idea of a slow moving slideshow versus a looping video; the
> two are really very different, where the slideshow is meant to just
> change unobtrusively while the video is built for instant
> gratification (for lack of better words at the top of my mind).
> One thing: Can we use relative paths for the slideshow XML files? I
> found these much more complicated to install than they should be...
>
> Bye,
> -Dylan
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sumit Agarwal wrote:
> >  > Anyone got any estimates on CPU/GPU usage if we finagled it through
> >  > Compiz?
> >
> >  As I said in a previous post about this, that would require taking away
> >  handling of the wallpaper from Nautilus. On the surface this sounds
> like
> >  a much more complex task then we need to take on or are even capable of
> >  doing.
> >
> >  I really say we just nix this idea for now and have people keep an eye
> >  out over this next cycle to see if things improve.
> >
> >
> >
> >  -Cory \m/
> >
> >  --
> >  ubuntu-art mailing list
> >  ubuntu-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
>



-- 
Álvaro.
-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Dylan McCall]

I entirely agree that something other than Nautilus could handle the
desktop background. It has always been odd to me how that is the case
now, and I bet if we had another, simpler program do it, the
background could load in much more happily than it does now.
(Furthermore, fancy visual effects for the wallpaper would not add
unnecessary dependencies to the file manager).

However, numerous issues with that being a Compiz plugin:
-Not everyone needs, wants or can have Compiz. (It also has a lot of
usability issues compared to Metacity).
-The Window Manager drawing an image to the background... Am I the
only one who finds the thought gross? That's like the kernel handling
a window system, a VGA cable used for audio, or a rhinoceros that
thinks it's a pterodactyl.
-Compiz is not the only thing that can do visual effects. The point of
a compositing window manager is to enable fancier visual effects for
the applications using it (eg: rgba instead of rgb), not to dominate
the role of generating visuals. A window manager should be focusing
entirely on placing and organizing windows in a standard way that
enhances usability in the realm of keeping things organized. Perhaps
it should be looked at this way: A window manager should be portable.
Most platforms have some visible program handling the wallpaper, such
as their file browser. Bad things happen when the window manager
suddenly decides that it, too, should handle the wallpaper -- namely,
loss of platform neutrality.

Having said that, the changing wallpapers are working fine for me over
here, I guess partly because I am not staring at them intently. I
prefer the idea of a slow moving slideshow versus a looping video; the
two are really very different, where the slideshow is meant to just
change unobtrusively while the video is built for instant
gratification (for lack of better words at the top of my mind).
One thing: Can we use relative paths for the slideshow XML files? I
found these much more complicated to install than they should be...

Bye,
-Dylan

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sumit Agarwal wrote:
>  > Anyone got any estimates on CPU/GPU usage if we finagled it through
>  > Compiz?
>
>  As I said in a previous post about this, that would require taking away
>  handling of the wallpaper from Nautilus. On the surface this sounds like
>  a much more complex task then we need to take on or are even capable of
>  doing.
>
>  I really say we just nix this idea for now and have people keep an eye
>  out over this next cycle to see if things improve.
>
>
>
>  -Cory \m/
>
>  --
>  ubuntu-art mailing list
>  ubuntu-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] Intrepid Panels

[shadowh511]

>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Right now I'm testing the first link Dana proposed and I could say It's
> just brilliant. It works and the CPU is near zero % (it may use the
> GPU). The transition from the one to the other image goes smoothly like
> this img1:90%, img2:10% ; img1:80%, img2:20% and so on. Thus when
> transitioning from sunset to midnight the image goes from pure gradient
> to gradient with slowly appearing stars and then colors changing. It's
> beautiful. But there is one problem here - it is probably made for
> another time of the year and the sunset is "coming" when outside is
> light (I suppose we could fix this with proper time intervals and a tool
> that modifies the files each month or so).
>
> Another interesting idea I had today is that we can change the
> perspective of the  pictures and thus having smth like a virtual walk in
> the jungle for example :)
>
> Anton
>
>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-art mailing list
> ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
>

if you want a virtual walk though the jungle, you should use a video file
for less choppyness
-- 
Ubuntu FTW!
-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Anton Kerezov]

В 13:57 -0400 на 29.04.2008 (вт), Cory K. написа:
> Sumit Agarwal wrote:
> > Anyone got any estimates on CPU/GPU usage if we finagled it
> through  
> > Compiz?
> 
> As I said in a previous post about this, that would require taking
> away
> handling of the wallpaper from Nautilus. On the surface this sounds
> like
> a much more complex task then we need to take on or are even capable
> of
> doing.
> 
> I really say we just nix this idea for now and have people keep an eye
> out over this next cycle to see if things improve.
> 
> -Cory \m/

> Dana said:
> 
> I've actually taken a look at that feature; after I first saw it in 
> Fedora 8 and 9 (beta at the time), I've been 'dying' to see the same 
> feature in Ubuntu.  It turns out that the XML slideshow wallpaper 
> feature from Fedora has been pushed upstream, so now it exists in
> Gnome 
> 2.22, and thus Ubuntu (Hardy); there just isn't any artwork using it. 
> However, this feature is static, in that it responds only to time 
> changes, and not to season or weather changes.
> 
> If you search for 'slideshow' on gnome-look, you get a few results:
> http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Tree+Slideshow+Wallpaper+for
> +Fedora?content=74639
> http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/DebianBlue+(Animated
> +Slideshow)?content=75289
> http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Debian-Bling+(Animated
> +Slideshow)?content=75293 
> -- note: this one is more of an example of "what not to do!"
> Some of the wallpapers from vladstudio.com also work decently well
> with 
> these XML files.
> 
> This feature can be very cool if done right, but it definitely needs 
> good artwork to go with it.


Hello everyone,

Right now I'm testing the first link Dana proposed and I could say It's
just brilliant. It works and the CPU is near zero % (it may use the
GPU). The transition from the one to the other image goes smoothly like
this img1:90%, img2:10% ; img1:80%, img2:20% and so on. Thus when
transitioning from sunset to midnight the image goes from pure gradient
to gradient with slowly appearing stars and then colors changing. It's
beautiful. But there is one problem here - it is probably made for
another time of the year and the sunset is "coming" when outside is
light (I suppose we could fix this with proper time intervals and a tool
that modifies the files each month or so). 

Another interesting idea I had today is that we can change the
perspective of the  pictures and thus having smth like a virtual walk in
the jungle for example :)

Anton




-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Cory K.]

Sumit Agarwal wrote:
> Anyone got any estimates on CPU/GPU usage if we finagled it through  
> Compiz?

As I said in a previous post about this, that would require taking away
handling of the wallpaper from Nautilus. On the surface this sounds like
a much more complex task then we need to take on or are even capable of
doing.

I really say we just nix this idea for now and have people keep an eye
out over this next cycle to see if things improve.

-Cory \m/

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Sumit Agarwal]

On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Cory K. wrote:

> Julian Oliver wrote:
>> 5% is way too much GPU or CPU consumption for a wallpaper IMO.
>
> It's actually *much* higher while its transitioning. On my dual-core
> setup Nautilus jumped up to like 60% usage using a 20second fade. Any
> lower then 15 didn't work. Maybe a longer fade/transition duration  
> would
> lower the usage. But then, the effect appears jittery. Like a low
> frame-rate.
>
> -Cory \m/
>
> -- 
> ubuntu-art mailing list
> ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Anyone got any estimates on CPU/GPU usage if we finagled it through  
Compiz?

I think that might be the only reasonable way to do this, and such a  
feature could likely well wait until compositing is more standardized  
across the Ubuntu desktop.

Besides, aren't there more pressing visual niceties like that textured  
panel, nicer drop-shadows, etc?

-Sumit

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Cory K.]

Julian Oliver wrote:
> 5% is way too much GPU or CPU consumption for a wallpaper IMO.

It's actually *much* higher while its transitioning. On my dual-core
setup Nautilus jumped up to like 60% usage using a 20second fade. Any
lower then 15 didn't work. Maybe a longer fade/transition duration would
lower the usage. But then, the effect appears jittery. Like a low
frame-rate.

-Cory \m/

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Sumit Agarwal]

On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Steph wrote:


* The animated, "live" wallpaper : it'a good idea, as long as it  
doesn't use more than 5% of CPU or GPU (better), and if this is  
realized, we have to check if it's really that eye pleasant.  
Animation is cool, yes, but really unobtrusive. We could try to  
reproduce a feature of the  Sony Ericsson S500I phone, wich changes  
its wallpaper along the day. My girlfriend has one, it's really  
beautiful, and not stressing at all


The a first proposition for Intrepix : what about increasing the  
size of both gnome panels ? The default, lowest size is 24 pixels,  
and setting it at 32px produces a much pleasing effect. A pleasing  
desktop shouldn't force user to squint to see what's written. Those  
who have a bad vision would be glad. Technically, I don't know if  
this increase of panel size causes some problems with window  
display, if anybody can tell me more about this...And then, we  
should __definitely__ find a gnome panel background, or anything but  
delete this stupid grey color.




5% CPU utilization is too high, in my opinion. GPU certainly would be  
much better. Remember that more and more people are using Ubuntu on  
laptops, and even desktop users are becoming concerned about energy  
usage. For these reasons whatever dynamic desktop solution we have  
must not interfere with the CPU going into power-saving cycles. Even a  
very mild constant CPU load keeps the CPU awake much more than is  
necessary.


I do agree on making the panel (yes, singular) bigger. And, as you  
might also assume, I am for eliminating one of the panels. The top  
panel in particular has lots of wasted space. We need to find an  
acceptable way to either 1) combine both  panels or 2) make proper use  
of the top panel. The only sensible use I can find for the top panel  
is for it to assume menubar functions from GTK apps (a la Mac style).  
Of course, this is far from universal in the Linux world and would  
break in such common apps as Firefox and OpenOffice.


My vote is for a larger singular panel.

-Sumit-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[shadowh511]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Julian Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> ..on or around Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:42:05PM +0200, Steph said:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > It seems I had a bug of the list and received ~50 of your message in a
> > single digest. Here's what I think of :
> >
> > * The animated, "live" wallpaper : it'a good idea, as long as it doesn't
> use
> > more than 5% of CPU or GPU (better), and if this is realized, we have to
> > check if it's really that eye pleasant. Animation is cool, yes, but
> > really unobtrusive.
> > We could try to reproduce a feature of the  Sony Ericsson
> > <
> http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/products/mobilephones/overview/s500i?cc=fr&lc=en
> >S500I
> > phone<
> http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/products/mobilephones/overview/s500i?cc=fr&lc=en
> >,
> > wich changes its wallpaper along the day. My girlfriend has one, it's
> really
> > beautiful, and not stressing at all.
>
> 5% is way too much GPU or CPU consumption for a wallpaper IMO. moreso
> are you imagining 5% of the minimum target spec at the time of release?
>
> (it would be ironic that the wallpaper has an 'earthy' theme yet is
> itself the most energy expensive element of the UI when idle).
>
> cheers,
>
> --
> julian oliver
> http://julianoliver.com
> http://selectparks.net
> messages containing HTML will not be read.
>
> --
> ubuntu-art mailing list
> ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
>

/me laughedApple's osX has an animated wallpaper option.  you set an
animated gif as the backround.  Windows has their dreamscene (i tried it,
and it uses no more cpu power than windows vista uses for idling).  Maybe
our answer is in video files (get rid of the audio though) for more powerful
computers and gifs or a slideshow for older computers.  I know that the
latter is possible with "Desktop Drapes"
Hope that helps!
-- 
Ubuntu FTW!
-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Julian Oliver]

..on or around Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:42:05PM +0200, Steph said:
> Hi guys,
> 
> It seems I had a bug of the list and received ~50 of your message in a
> single digest. Here's what I think of :
> 
> * The animated, "live" wallpaper : it'a good idea, as long as it doesn't use
> more than 5% of CPU or GPU (better), and if this is realized, we have to
> check if it's really that eye pleasant. Animation is cool, yes, but
> really unobtrusive.
> We could try to reproduce a feature of the  Sony Ericsson
> S500I
> phone,
> wich changes its wallpaper along the day. My girlfriend has one, it's really
> beautiful, and not stressing at all.

5% is way too much GPU or CPU consumption for a wallpaper IMO. moreso
are you imagining 5% of the minimum target spec at the time of release?

(it would be ironic that the wallpaper has an 'earthy' theme yet is
itself the most energy expensive element of the UI when idle).

cheers,

-- 
julian oliver
http://julianoliver.com
http://selectparks.net
messages containing HTML will not be read.

-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

Re: [ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[shadowh511]

you're right.  I changed my gtk theme to the mac osx one just to get rid of
the boring grey in the panel (I even started using a dock!).  As far as
panel themes go, it should be smooth and glossy, but match the current theme
.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Steph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> It seems I had a bug of the list and received ~50 of your message in a
> single digest. Here's what I think of :
>
> * The animated, "live" wallpaper : it'a good idea, as long as it doesn't
> use more than 5% of CPU or GPU (better), and if this is realized, we have to
> check if it's really that eye pleasant. Animation is cool, yes, but really 
> unobtrusive.
> We could try to reproduce a feature of the  Sony Ericsson
> S500I
> phone,
> wich changes its wallpaper along the day. My girlfriend has one, it's really
> beautiful, and not stressing at all.
>
> * Organisation : As you said, there's a great lack of organisation in this
> list. We don't have any art tracker or anything (what has be done of
> art.ubuntu.com, it's been months since I'me waiting?). But we have the
> Ubuntu Wiki, indeed, wich is actually a very good place to share ideas and
> show the progress of each team.
>
> * The theme selection at installation : I disagree, as others, the idea of
> asking wich theme to use, first because we want the installation to be the
> clearest as possible, simplest as possible, and even a tiny checkboxwould
> disturb the installation processus. Second, the theme we're going to realize
> will be so great nobody will change it :D
>
> The a first proposition for Intrepix : what about increasing the size of
> both gnome panels ? The default, lowest size is 24 pixels, and setting it at
> 32px produces a much pleasing effect. A pleasing desktop shouldn't force
> user to squint to see what's written. Those who have a bad vision would be
> glad. Technically, I don't know if this increase of panel size causes some
> problems with window display, if anybody can tell me more about this...And
> then, we should __definitely__ find a gnome panel background, or anything
> but delete this stupid grey color.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> ubuntu-art mailing list
> ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
>
>


-- 
Ubuntu FTW!
-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art

[ubuntu-art] Intrepid Panels

[Steph]

Hi guys,

It seems I had a bug of the list and received ~50 of your message in a
single digest. Here's what I think of :

* The animated, "live" wallpaper : it'a good idea, as long as it doesn't use
more than 5% of CPU or GPU (better), and if this is realized, we have to
check if it's really that eye pleasant. Animation is cool, yes, but
really unobtrusive.
We could try to reproduce a feature of the  Sony Ericsson
S500I
phone,
wich changes its wallpaper along the day. My girlfriend has one, it's really
beautiful, and not stressing at all.

* Organisation : As you said, there's a great lack of organisation in this
list. We don't have any art tracker or anything (what has be done of
art.ubuntu.com, it's been months since I'me waiting?). But we have the
Ubuntu Wiki, indeed, wich is actually a very good place to share ideas and
show the progress of each team.

* The theme selection at installation : I disagree, as others, the idea of
asking wich theme to use, first because we want the installation to be the
clearest as possible, simplest as possible, and even a tiny checkboxwould
disturb the installation processus. Second, the theme we're going to realize
will be so great nobody will change it :D

The a first proposition for Intrepix : what about increasing the size of
both gnome panels ? The default, lowest size is 24 pixels, and setting it at
32px produces a much pleasing effect. A pleasing desktop shouldn't force
user to squint to see what's written. Those who have a bad vision would be
glad. Technically, I don't know if this increase of panel size causes some
problems with window display, if anybody can tell me more about this...And
then, we should __definitely__ find a gnome panel background, or anything
but delete this stupid grey color.

Cheers.
-- 
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art