On Jun 1, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Deepak Sharma <deeky.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison > <brl...@mac.com> wrote: >> Where are the icons from in the top-right? License? At a glance, three >> seem unintuitive prior to login. > > These are not added by me. They were already present. According to me > they are chosen from [0]. Understood, no worries who added it! :) The history of our code authorship generally doesn’t ever matter — it’s each dev's responsibility to improve things when they notice. It’s most efficient to fix problems when they’re in our locus of attention, even if they were not originally scoped. The contributor responsibilities section in the HACKING file (particularly point #5) talks specifically about fixing issues when we find them. If they did come from flaticons.net, then that about be a different issue. I see no license statement on that site, which means we legally cannot use them without written permission. (“Royalty-free” is not a license). I sent them an e-mail but somehow doubt I’ll get a response. In the meantime, we should incorporate plans to replace/remove them before the GSoC is over since making OGV production-ready is a primary goal. > I have keeping your points in mind I have tried to improve the design > and tried my best to maintain consistency in colours and all other > aspects. > > * In the first slide the colour has been now match to the OGV logo > written on top-left side. Looks better! > * The duplicate slide have been merged to one. I think they are > conveying to the point information to the user. Agreed. Ditto questions here about the source of the iconography. Looks nice, but we the source and/or license of those icons also needs to be checked. > * The content of "Explore the power of OGV" has also been modified. > But please give me the guide or your view so that it can be improved a > little more. Deconstructing the paragraph, each sentence paraphrased is: 1) "OGV is a web app for viewing and sharing 3D models”. There is no new info. 2) “BRL-CAD has designed this package…” Not sure I see a useful point. 3) “Whatever formulated offline can be viewed online, just needing a .g file.” Only new info is .g file, which may not remain a requirements — minor. 4) “Like and comment on hosted models.” No new info (it’s the byline) 5) “It can be viewed …” Ditto redundancy. So, really the only new info is a minor one (and repeated later below) so I suggest just eliminating the section entirely. Of course, this will make “OGV is not simply only a viewer” be awkward coming next. I suggest removing that as well. Less is more. Looking a lot better to me. The tiny icons in the top-right probably are indicators for other sections that will later be desirable, but they should be considered one at a time. For example, it may make sense later to have a section about browsing models already uploaded (maybe, implies gallery view which does not yet exist). Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list brlcad-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
