On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com <frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Removing all but one color from an icon by default is a bad idea, >> unless the icon is supposed to be that way. Even these exceptions >> should be kept to a minimum. The issue that arises is that there are >> two main characteristics people use when quickly identifying an icon: >> color and shape. If we make all the icons one color, then this >> distinction is lost, and we must rely on shape alone, which isn't idea >> for many people. This is the exact inverse of a theme like faenza, >> where all the icons are the same shape (you lose the differences in >> shape, then you only have color left). > > > perhaps my wording was ambiguous or unclear, i mean to suggest the > introduction of symbols instead of branding icons into the launcher. > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim > at developing it themselves? > I think Ayatana should come up with symbols for the Unity UI, including > launcher SYMBOLS for default webbrowser, default email UI, default IM UI and > default file management UI. > > Ayatana aka Canonical also came up with symbols for workspace switcher, > trash and Dash, so it is not far fetched to do the same for default apps > such as firefox and thunderbird, empathy and totem, gnome-terminal, > gnome-calculator, [skype,] gnome-terminal and USC. > > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider it. > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim at > developing it themselves? Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity; Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the Design team. > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is "app" > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a smartphone app store. Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm glad that the original poster was able to set up Ubuntu relatively easily with larger, more visible icons. I agree that the launcher arrows are not obvious enough; maybe the designers will try to make them better in the coming weeks. Jeremy _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
