I have too agree - one step at a time - could have benefits on long terms. I'll write you personally, not here, about how I see the long term goals for Gnome UI (I'm thinking from some time to this subject and his many faces - not just theming - but modifying UI structure).
As always the big problem is time - I hope to have some free time right after Hardy launch - to hack into code - being already PHP / Actionscript / Javascript coder for some years - I have just to start now on C/C++/Python/Vala. Kenneth Wimer wrote: > I like the simplicity of Aurora and think that we can take ideas from it for > the future. At first glance it seems quite like the Oxygen style created for > KDE4 in some ways. Not sure how much is possible in the short term as far as > that kind of coding goes (or how flexible the engine is to allow us adopt it > to our needs). If we have mockups of exactly where we want to go we might be > able to find a developer to realize it. In the future I think if we start to > develop something new we should look into good ideas from several themes, not > just adopt one "as-is". Whatever we pick to use in Hardy should reflect a > step in that direction. Probably a very small step but at this point in time > having a long term plan and just beginning to realize it would be a huge step > for Ubuntu artwork. > > On Tuesday 29 January 2008 23:04:52 Nemes Ioan Sorin wrote: >> I don't wanna Aurora ...because of myself. >> >> It's OK, is slow maybe, on my machine run just fine, I have to reaffirm >> cos WE CAN USE Visual Proposals and Visual Enhancements from Aurora as >> good ideas for the new Ubuntu theme. >> >> btw Aurora is not highest rated in gnome-look (at GTK2) because of >> engine(90% of users don't know about the difference between engine and >> theme) but because the look. They like what they see. >> >> For most users Aurora is a step forward in the right direction (as Apple >> do for long time -> an intuitive, semantical UI (icons and icon groups) >> - more than a logical(orthodox) one (with lots of text menus and >> vertical / horizontal separators)). >> >> Aurora is simple, round, clean, arrows on widgets are tringles not "V"'s >> gradients are unobtrusive - scrollbars finally look good and personal >> (not like old gtk scrollbars). >> >> Maybe a fine tune of Murrina engine (I already have a Murrina >> configurator ) can solve a lot of problems regarding -> bad contrast / >> pale difference between UI parts with different functions. >> >> So why we should "stamp" a foot in the back to something instead to >> taken good things from inside. I am always concerned about "positivist >> logic" on communities [...]. >> >> My proposal was to look at it's best parts not to ...adopt Aurora. >> >> Also taking count on his popularity - that means they succeed in some >> aspects and we can benefit from this. Just think about. >> >> That's my lobby. Point. >> >> On the other side "clearlooks hack" is a pretty nice proposal - no >> horizontal separators - an other step in the good direction. >> >> SorinN >> >> Sebastian Billaudelle wrote: >>> I don't like Aurora, because ist's a very slow engine. At my machine >>> (Pentium M, 1500 MHz; 768 MB RAM; ...) you can watch the widgets >>> loading;-) Gtkperf doesn't like Aurora, too;-) >>> >>> cheers Sebastian >>> >>> Am Dienstag, den 29.01.2008, 04:27 +0200 schrieb SorinN: >>>> Clear Looks or Ubuntulooks would look nice with an usable scrollbar ( >>>> I mean distinctive ) - as the Aurora theme has ( even that Aurora tent >>>> to be on top of highest rated of gtk2 engines on gnome-look.org [ >>>> that's mean something - rest of the world dont care about what we talk >>>> here ;) - maybe we can keep something good this engine -> if we don't >>>> like / want Aurora at the end ). >>>> >>>> Murrine can be a good engine too on the other side - with the same >>>> problem - scrollbar face need a lift on it's form ( to be more >>>> visible, ( using a scrolltrack gradient [ ... ] ). Also default font >>>> for Murrine on Cimi website screenshots is a bit scary regarding it's >>>> usability - a little bit fat font could be a better solution on small >>>> UI widgets. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nemes Ioan Sorin > -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
