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.
I also don't see why you simply say "guidelines are great, but we
make exceptions". I don't see why you can just admit that some of the
icons in the Human set are inconsistent.
To me, it sounds like you're just saying "it's been decided, you
don't have any say in it, let's smother this discussion". I disagree
with such an attitude.
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".
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 don't see why. The Tangerine/Tango set already exists, is more
complete, has more people working on it, has a more open design
process, also makes Ubuntu ready for the future concerning design
consistency. Just because some people felt it was necessary to say no
to it for Dapper doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible to re-evaluate
it for Edgy.
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
Human isn't more complete than Tangerine/Tango. Sure, it's the custom-
made icon theme for the distro, and that's a great thing, but I don't
believe that this is valid rationale, concerning the criticism that
I've given.
PS: please respond to the mailing list rather than to me.
Michiel Sikma
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
