Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
Lapo Calamandrei wrote I feel like being personally attacked when somebody talk down tango this way. I certainly have no desire to cause offense - sorry if that's the case. My experience with Tango has just not been the one I want for the default experience with Ubuntu and Kubuntu. I think the *process* of Tango has been excellent in terms of defining guidelines and palettes, I just don't like the resulting icons. Mark -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
On 6/26/06, Mark Shuttleworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [huge snip] Just wondering: _are_ there any published guidelines and/or colour palettes for the Human icon set? If there are, are they being followed? One or both of these questions appears to be have no as an answer. -- Travis Watkins http://www.realistanew.com -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
Travis Watkins wrote: On 6/26/06, Mark Shuttleworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [huge snip] Just wondering: _are_ there any published guidelines and/or colour palettes for the Human icon set? If there are, are they being followed? One or both of these questions appears to be have "no" as an answer. No, there's no published guideline, and fixing that should be our first step. Human was created over a series of phone calls between me, Dave (from the company that did the design work), Daniel Holbach, Jeff Waugh and Jane Silber. We can continue to retain Dave's professional services and put them at Frank's disposal. As Artist-in-chief for Edgy I would expect Frank to coordinate this work. Michiel would be a great person to have on that team, identifying inconsistencies and extracting guidelines from the decisions that have been taken already. I'm happy to sit in on the first few calls just to get the ball rolling. Mark -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
OK, I think we are making progress here! Michiel Sikma wrote: What I do appreciate is that Human was used in Dapper while it was incomplete as an extra impulse to get people to complete it. I'll definitely make it one of my things to do to point out things which I believe are bad choices in Human. Because, like I've said, Human isn't a bad icon set (at all), to me personally, there are small things that add up and make a large difference. These aren't things that are difficult to solve. You have a good eye for those inconsistencies. Would you like to join the team improving Human? As I see it the process would be: - continue to identify and prioritise icons on the page at: http://daniel.holba.ch/ubuntu/ic/ - discuss inconsistencies and give the AIC feedback - develop a set of "style guidelines" that capture the essence of what has been done - not change the key style established in Human (i.e. the folder icon and others) - not redo icons unless there is a significant inconsistency - contribute icons that fit with the emerging style of Human We would like to flesh out and complete Human during Edgy, and will backport that to Dapper (along with Frank's Firefox-Human theme) in a point release. I think that I've been misunderstood on this point a little, though. I don't think that it's not a good idea for Ubuntu to make itself distinct as a Linux distribution, as it _is_ a very important and unique one. I do support the "Ubuntufication" of the user interface, but feel that the way to go about this is by ensuring that such an attribute does not get in the way of usability, consistency and affiliation with the general user interface system of operating systems as a whole. OK. Then help us make Human even better! I happen to think we have improved on Tango in a number of ways. I think when Human is great, it's far more attractive than Tango. Yes, it has more warts, but we will take care of those over the course of Edgy. To my eyes, Tango is a little dry and dull. It lacks the austere beauty of OS X, and the cheerful beauty of Win XP. There is another thing that I would like to address, and it is the fact that Tango aims to give people a method of aligning the user interfaces of all Linux programs onto one centrally decided standard by means of (mainly) guidelines. This is, to me, an extremely interesting project, as it's usually consistency that is sometimes missing in Linux user interfaces. It also misses the basic fact that the KDE community wants different things from the Gnome community. While you may want consistency, that's a little bit like trying to make the Mac and Windows look the same. You could probably do it but you would end up with a bastard halfbreed that pleased nobody. Gnome and KDE are not just different colours. They have different philosophies. One of the key ingredients of our success in this project has been that we respected the difference rather than trying to shoehorn their vision into a combined platform. Red Hat and SUSE have done the shoehorning, we have quite deliberately allowed the Gnome and KDE communities to express their differences. If you want to be involved in the art in this project, then you really need to grasp how important that distinction is. While a "consistent user interface" is a beautiful idea, it should not come at the price of the feeling that KDE and Gnome have that Ubuntu / Kubuntu are the best places for THEM to express their ideas. THEY write the software, we just package it. This is absolutely essential for everyone to understand. Tango misses this. Now, don't get me wrong. We want the different desktop environments to learn from one another. We learned a bunch of stuff during Breezy with Ubuntu, and as a result we tuned the Kubuntu desktop in Dapper. But we did not try to make them look the same. Just like we have not tried to make either of them look like Windows (one common request) or like the Mac (another common request). I feel that the Tango project will be very important to Linux user interface development in the future and that it should expand beyond just providing an icon set. I think that it's important to realize that outside development will always be the largest portion of an operating system, and that once this portion becomes consistent with itself, Linux will become a whole lot more interesting for lots of people to use. Ubuntu should not blindly follow this, I agree, but should also not stray too far from what could be a great collaboration in the Linux community as a whole. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball. I can't tell what the future will bring. But allowing Human to blend in with Tango will definitely be a good thing. It's already well on its way, and in that sense, Ubuntu is leading the way (especially when compared to, for example, Fedora). This, however, is the reason why I feel that it's not always necessary for the Human icon theme to "re-invent the wheel". Such a feeling is partially
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: OK, I think we are making progress here! Michiel Sikma wrote: What I do appreciate is that Human was used in Dapper while it was incomplete as an extra impulse to get people to complete it. I'll definitely make it one of my things to do to point out things which I believe are bad choices in Human. Because, like I've said, Human isn't a bad icon set (at all), to me personally, there are small things that add up and make a large difference. These aren't things that are difficult to solve. You have a good eye for those inconsistencies. Would you like to join the team improving Human? As I see it the process would be: - continue to identify and prioritise icons on the page at: http://daniel.holba.ch/ubuntu/ic/ - discuss inconsistencies and give the AIC feedback - develop a set of style guidelines that capture the essence of what has been done - not change the key style established in Human (i.e. the folder icon and others) - not redo icons unless there is a significant inconsistency - contribute icons that fit with the emerging style of Human We would like to flesh out and complete Human during Edgy, and will backport that to Dapper (along with Frank's Firefox-Human theme) in a point release. I will make this my priority for now. Maybe someone, who is listening in on this conversation, could use this occasion to give me an idea about the status of Adobe Illustrator as a suitable vector program. I'm willing to learn how to get used to Inkscape, since it seems to be not too difficult, but I was wondering if it's also possible to properly export SVGs with Illustrator. I don't want to contribute anything that's useless to anybody besides the folks who use that particular program. There is another thing that I would like to address, and it is the fact that Tango aims to give people a method of aligning the user interfaces of all Linux programs onto one centrally decided standard by means of (mainly) guidelines. This is, to me, an extremely interesting project, as it's usually consistency that is sometimes missing in Linux user interfaces. It also misses the basic fact that the KDE community wants different things from the Gnome community. While you may want consistency, that's a little bit like trying to make the Mac and Windows look the same. You could probably do it but you would end up with a bastard halfbreed that pleased nobody. Gnome and KDE are not just different colours. They have different philosophies. One of the key ingredients of our success in this project has been that we respected the difference rather than trying to shoehorn their vision into a combined platform. Red Hat and SUSE have done the shoehorning, we have quite deliberately allowed the Gnome and KDE communities to express their differences. If you want to be involved in the art in this project, then you really need to grasp how important that distinction is. While a consistent user interface is a beautiful idea, it should not come at the price of the feeling that KDE and Gnome have that Ubuntu / Kubuntu are the best places for THEM to express their ideas. THEY write the software, we just package it. This is absolutely essential for everyone to understand. Tango misses this. Now, don't get me wrong. We want the different desktop environments to learn from one another. We learned a bunch of stuff during Breezy with Ubuntu, and as a result we tuned the Kubuntu desktop in Dapper. But we did not try to make them look the same. Just like we have not tried to make either of them look like Windows (one common request) or like the Mac (another common request). Hmm, I actually think that we're not entirely on the same page when it comes to the Tango project. I actually don't really value its attempt to unify GNOME and KDE that much as I am interested in it unifying just GNOME. I'm very unknowledgeable on KDE, actually. I can't really argue with you there, but it's true that GNOME and KDE have different philosophies, so you must be correct when it comes to this aspect of Tango. My feeling is that, like you say, it's important to have a firmly established style, but by doing that, one mustn't sacrifice the identity of a desktop environment. Killing off an identity will ruin the particular charm that such an environment has. I guess that there wasn't a reason for us to even begin the Tango discussion in this particular context. I still value its attempt to become a central authority in usability. It's most likely not a good idea to unify GNOME and KDE, but in the context of GNOME, it might very well be a good idea to provide people with one (careful and open) central idea of how a system should (or might) visually behave. Not in the sense that you have mentioned, and I'm glad that it turns out I agree with you on that as it is indeed a very
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:02 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote: On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: OK, I think we are making progress here! Michiel Sikma wrote: snip We would like to flesh out and complete Human during Edgy, and will backport that to Dapper (along with Frank's Firefox-Human theme) in a point release. I will make this my priority for now. Maybe someone, who is listening in on this conversation, could use this occasion to give me an idea about the status of Adobe Illustrator as a suitable vector program. I'm willing to learn how to get used to Inkscape, since it seems to be not too difficult, but I was wondering if it's also possible to properly export SVGs with Illustrator. I don't want to contribute anything that's useless to anybody besides the folks who use that particular program. As long as you stay away from any filters and effects it works fine. Note however that some SVGs made in inkscape cannot be edited without loss in AI (inkscape can make a gradient with transparency in the nodes and can also make stroke gradients...AI can show this stuff correctly but it cannot edit them). In the end, you should save the SVG with AI and then test it with inkscape to make sure that everything works. One good thing about AI is that the paths it writes are much smaller than inkscape. Bye, Ken -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
Hi, On Jun 25, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote: On Jun 25, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Troy James Sobotka wrote: This will require some new language. Basically, Human icons are in and staying -- as per sabdfl. This will be a component of the 'Human Look', which is what we are sticking with (albeit trying to finish it, polish it, and finish the set.) I don't understand why it is so pertinently important to keep Human in. In all objectivity, it's simply a suboptimal icon set when compared to Tango. I also don't see why any of the arguments that I have given have to be ignored. Like I stated, Human doesn't seem to follow any proper guidelines at all. If it does, then I would like to read their rationale for arbitrarily designing some icons from different angles. I see it as a good decision for branding the gnome desktop for an Ubuntu product. I do not think you are being ignored but rather that your opinion differs from others, especially those who make the decisions for artwork inclusion in the aforementioned product. Note as well that in artwork, guidelines are great, but for every rule there is an exception. Seeing as the decision has already been made I suggest you produce a viable alternative by working in a group with other like-minded individuals - if the result is seen as better in everyones eyes than what exists now we can perhaps change this decision in future releases. I've got the greatest respect for Mark, but I do not see his rationale. I see this as a decision to include the most complete, appealing theme which is also branded for the distri. Indeed, no matter what the rationale the decision is very clear and simple to fulfill. What happens in the future is a completely different subject. Bye, Kenneth -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
PS: sorry, I didn't realize you had already sent a mail to the list as well. Michiel Sikma [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Quick Update
On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:55 PM, Kenneth Wimer wrote: Hi, On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote: On Jun 25, 2006, at 8:25 PM, Kenneth Wimer wrote: On Jun 25, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote: On Jun 25, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Troy James Sobotka wrote: This will require some new language. Basically, Human icons are in and staying -- as per sabdfl. This will be a component of the 'Human Look', which is what we are sticking with (albeit trying to finish it, polish it, and finish the set.) I don't understand why it is so pertinently important to keep Human in. In all objectivity, it's simply a suboptimal icon set when compared to Tango. I also don't see why any of the arguments that I have given have to be ignored. Like I stated, Human doesn't seem to follow any proper guidelines at all. If it does, then I would like to read their rationale for arbitrarily designing some icons from different angles. I see it as a good decision for branding the gnome desktop for an Ubuntu product. I do not think you are being ignored but rather that your opinion differs from others, especially those who make the decisions for artwork inclusion in the aforementioned product. Note as well that in artwork, guidelines are great, but for every rule there is an exception. I don't think it's just my opinion that differs. As I've mentioned before, I've got valid criticism for the Human icon set. I simply believe it to be inferior to Tangerine/Tango for various reasons. Generally, I feel as though this same opinion exists among more members of the art community. Until now, this opinion is not exactly a consensus. As noted previously in other mails, some of these decisions are not up to us as a democratic entity. Sure, this isn't a democratic vote that I would want to be reliant on, but rather a discussion to figure out which of the icon sets is the most aesthetically pleasing. It's my opinion that the Tangerine set is. It follows guidelines more strictly, hasn't gone overboard with insane levels of orangification (does the user-desktop icon really need to attempt to show the default wallpaper in the smallest icon size? Does the Internet icon really need to be a large orange sphere?) and has more probability of being consistent with pretty much the whole general style of the non-Ubuntu Linux art of tomorrow. Consistency is still an important thing, and as of yet, Ubuntu is not a trend setter in the art or UI world. Tango seems to be just that. I also don't see why you simply say guidelines are great, but we make exceptions. Note that I did not say that we make exceptions but rather that all rules have exceptions in the real world. So? That doesn't mean it's useful as an excuse as to why, for example, the network-server icon is shown from the front, while the drive-harddisk icon is shown slightly from above. This is a reason for revisiting some of the icons and perhaps improving them. In fact, with the style of the Human icons, they could perhaps even be produced with the Tango guidelines. They're very viable guidelines and work for the style that Human has. I don't see why you can just admit that some of the icons in the Human set are inconsistent. I have not denied this fact, but simply tried to explain why it is so. There is also a valid reason to brand a project so that it stands out as an individual within the greater group of related projects. I don't mean inconsistent with other distros; I mean inconsistent with itself, as explained above. This isn't marketing-related, it's simply art-related. Don't get me wrong, though. I don't think that the Human icon set is bad by any standard, but I simply feel that a more open process would enable us to get rid of such things. It's imperative that inconsistency is taken care of in any case. This doesn't take away that most of the icons in the system should just come from Tangerine/Tango, as the Tango icon set is likely to be the style of icons for _all_ default application icons in the future. It will most definitely become very popular, and I don't think it is a good idea for Ubuntu to say no to that style because we want it to be a little different. It is not a case of wanting it to be a little different, but rather to make it look distinctively Ubuntu and beautiful. That still doesn't respond to any of the other things that I have just mentioned. Besides, is marketing really a proper reason for inconsistency in artwork? It's a user interface that's the face of a system, afterall, and from what I can tell, Ubuntu seems to want to market itself towards those who would partially base their decision on whether to start using Ubuntu based on the user interface, friendliness and usability. And if that is the case, then I cannot see any use for some of the design choices that the Human set has made. Like the
