Gilles J. Seguin wrote:
-1
I vote against
reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPM_%28image_format%29
your arguments about transparent pixels is wrong, and XPM is more
flexible than the others one.
Me too.
- i do not want to break with the unix tradition of supporting legacy
On 7 March 2014 16:21, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 March 2014 14:08, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
Microsoft, Apple, and Google set requirements that apps must follow if
they want to appear in the software center in order to ensure a good
user experience.
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 15:41 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
XPM is an old standard for icons used by a very small number of
desktop packages in Fedora. The XPM icons are normally small, mostly 8
bit, and usually without an alpha channel and look very bad in the
software center.
I'm going to
On 6 March 2014 18:51, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
Not showing app, because they have bad looking icons, seems like a bad idea
to me.
I'm not sure anyone will be surprised in my goal of making the
applications we show users have high quality content. XPM icons are a
good first
On 2014-03-06, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
XPM is an old standard for icons used by a very small number of
desktop packages in Fedora. The XPM icons are normally small, mostly 8
bit, and usually without an alpha channel and look very bad in the
software center.
I'm going to
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Satyajit Sahoo satyajit.ha...@gmail.comwrote:
Apps with ugly icons and ugly design results in bad user experience
IMO. They should not be displayed in the software center
The quaility of an application has nothing todo, with at fancy icon, not
showning the icon
On 7 March 2014 11:42, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
GIF is an old standard for icons used by a very small number of
desktop packages in Fedora.
Also valid. The *two* applications in Fedora using gif icons are
asymptote and imagej.
Richard
--
devel mailing list
Am 07.03.2014 12:57, schrieb Tim Lauridsen:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Satyajit Sahoo satyajit.ha...@gmail.com
mailto:satyajit.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
Apps with ugly icons and ugly design results in bad user experience
IMO. They should not be displayed in the software center
The
On 7 March 2014 11:57, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
what will be the next ? qt apps ? gtk2 apps
No, because that would be ridiculous. Hiding applications using GTK1
would of course be okay.
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
2014-03-07 12:35 GMT+01:00 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure anyone will be surprised in my goal of making the
applications we show users have high quality content. XPM icons are a
good first step, then it'll be things like missing icon transparency,
AppData, translated AppData
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 13:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
says who?
as long GTK1 is not forbidden in Fedora there is no valid
reason for that statement - you may prefer not having a
function at all if it is not beautiful enough for you
*but*
* beautiful is in the eye of the beholder
*
Am 07.03.2014 15:08, schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 13:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
says who?
as long GTK1 is not forbidden in Fedora there is no valid
reason for that statement - you may prefer not having a
function at all if it is not beautiful enough for you
*but*
Am 07.03.2014 15:08, schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
Ancient icons are a good heuristic that the app is unmaintained
and not something the user really wants to install
Ancient icons are a good heuristic that a app if it does what i
need the next week or month does not get a complete rewrite
with
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 12:57 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
The quaility of an application has nothing todo, with at fancy icon,
not showning the icon is ok, but don't show the application is not IMO
what will be the next ? qt apps ? gtk2 apps
Consider the option of assuming good faith.
- ajax
On 7 March 2014 14:08, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
Microsoft, Apple, and Google set requirements that apps must follow if
they want to appear in the software center in order to ensure a good
user experience.
This is something I absolutely want to do. We already rate the
it up it will look bad, no matter how
well it's designed otherwise. That's just a limitation of the format, and
saying so is not flawed.
Original-Nachricht
Betreff: Proposal: Don't show applications in the software center with XPM
icons
Datum: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:41:00 +
Am 07.03.2014 20:42, schrieb Przemek Klosowski:
On 03/07/2014 11:21 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 7 March 2014 14:08, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
Microsoft, Apple, and Google set requirements that apps must follow if
they want to appear in the software center in order to
XPM is an old standard for icons used by a very small number of
desktop packages in Fedora. The XPM icons are normally small, mostly 8
bit, and usually without an alpha channel and look very bad in the
software center.
I'm going to propose for F21 that we drop support for XPM in the
metadata
Not showing app, because they have bad looking icons, seems like a bad idea
to me.
what about using some cairo magic to merge the .xpm icon with some other
.png frame to make it look better
Apps with ugly icons and ugly design results in bad user experience
IMO. They should not be displayed in the software center. If devs want
an icon, there are lots of icon designers out there who can contribute
one. You just need to ask.
On 7 March 2014 00:21, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com
20 matches
Mail list logo
