Asa Dotzler wrote:
> JTK wrote:
>
> > Alright:
> >
> > 1. The GIMP is cool.
>
> Yes. The GIMP is cool. I agree with you.
>
> > 2. Will the Mozilla project accept reasonable[1] artwork contributions,
> > add them to http://www.mozilla.org/banners/,
>
> Why do they have to be added to banners/?
>
> and let the people (as in
> > users, not People's Republic)
>
> Mozilla's (the browser) users are the development, testing and qa
> communities plus vendors using Mozilla technologies in their releases.
> Most of the development, testing and qa community could care less what
> the few Mozilla images (installer, splash, throbber and desktop icon) in
> the application look like and the vendors like Netscape and Beonex have
> their own splash and icon art.
>
> www.mozilla.org's (the website) users are the development, testing and
> qa communities, vendors using Mozilla technologies, plus the people that
> would like to join one of those groups. I think that the website could
> use a new look and that something a little less heavy would be a nice
> change. I've seen some pretty nice mock-ups with just the Mozilla head
> (like slashdot uses) and "mozilla.org" in the banner as well as some
> completely different ideas with totally different art and color schemes.
> If we move over to a new website architecture (being worked on) then we
> may see something like "site skins" where users could pick from a
> handful of style sheets or create their own. I'm all for making a
> change to lighten up the website but I prefer to spend my time thinking
> about organizing content and navigation because I think those are a more
> important problem to tackle. If you'd like to do a mock-up of site
> banners and such then please do and post to n.p.m.documentation if you
> get something that you like.
>
> decide whether they want to use commie or
> > non-commie artwork to promote this supposedly "Open" project?
>
> Did you miss the whole "mozilla icons are really boring and ugly" rants
> and the artwork that came of that? What about the "mozilla needs a new
> splash screen" and the artwork that resulted there? If you did miss
> those read back in .general and .ui and take a look at some of the art
> people posted there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] do not want to have a contest
> but if something better (lots of wiggle room here, I know) comes along
> then I think we should take it. There have already been a large number
> of submissions of alternate splash screen and icon art. Some of it is
> good, some not so good. I'm not the most eduacted critic in the world
> but I do have more than a few years of university study in graphic
> design, then art history, and architecture which should at least qualify
> me to make the occasional critical statement about this or that icon or
> splash screen.
>
> --Asa
What a disappointment. Forget about the pretty pictures and the fancy
gimmicks. Mozilla is supposed to be fully W3C compliant. That should
be the main thrust. XML, XSLT, XUL, X-adnauseum, javascript, DOM's,
CSS's, are all being worked on and HTML is still not completely
supported. Soft Hyphen is in the specifications but Mozilla people
have tagged it as not important enough for now and have labelled it
as being an enhancement, but let's spend our time on redesigning the
throbber and splashscreen - unbelievable.
Gus
P.S. IE 5 supports the soft hyphen.
