Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Tom von Schwerdtner]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:53:24 -0500, Vincent Noel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the best thing to do might be to just file a bug when we find
> such icons, that are just leftovers from an ancient era :-) The Eye of
> Gnome one was filed as bug #167087.

It's the engine we like, not necessarily the theme you are looking at.
 I personally am using the clearlooks engine with an Indubstrial
colorscheme and like it quite a bit.

-Tom

-- 
Tom von Schwerdtner
Etria, LLP :: http://etria.com/
Baltimore, MD
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Juha Siltala]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 18:08 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> > > (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> > > through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement.
> 
> Then I guess I am pretty alone when I don't feel that this is an
> improvement?

You are not alone. I think such a toy theme would be an awful default.
Look at KDE for Pete's sake!

-- 
Juha Siltala
http://www.helsinki.fi/activity/people/jsiltala/

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Seth Nickell]

Using my voice as gnome-themes maintainer, please hold off on this Christian.

-Seth


On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:21:09 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nuvola is today in gnome-themes-extras. I am going to move it into
> gnome-themes if the maintainers of that package approve the move and
> make a new final release of g-t-e without Nuvola.
> 
> This means that while it will not be the default theme for GNOME it
> will be part of a default installation.
> 
> http://librsvg.sourceforge.net/theme.php shows how the metatheme
> currently look.
> 
> Christian
> 
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:23 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
> > Look at this:
> > http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358
> >
> > A nice icon theme. Colors and Life
> >
> > Everaldo.
> >
> > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 às 19:09 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> > > Yes... it is nice and clean... but where is "life" and "color"?
> > > "Clean" is good when your work 8 or more hours on a computer but if you
> > > user 1 hour per day to read your mail "Clean" sounds like a "Ugly".
> > >
> > > I like "etiquette" but now is time to thinking like a "END USER". Or
> > > GNOME and Linux always is for "hackers"... The KDE team is on another
> > > way, the way for "end users"... and GNOME?
> > >
> > > Everaldo.
> > >
> > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 às 21:57 +0100, Michaël Arnauts escreveu:
> > > > I think the new etiquette icon theme is quite attractive... It's still
> > > > clean like the default Gnome one, but it has a refreshing new look...
> > > > Especially the mime-types... I love it...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:06:17 -0200, Everaldo Canuto
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.
> > > > >
> > > > > Everaldo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 às 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> > > > > > This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu 
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Everaldo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 às 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> > > > > > > >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install 
> > > > > > > >> Bluecurve and
> > > > > > > >> never look back.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what 
> > > > > > > >identifies
> > > > > > > >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, 
> > > > > > > >legally
> > > > > > > >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and 
> > > > > > > >Industrial.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it 
> > > > > > > at the
> > > > > > > Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
> > > > > > > Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks 
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author 
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > also very actively working on it and preparing a website 
> > > > > > > including a
> > > > > > > voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded 
> > > > > > > scrollbars[3]
> > > > > > > and some other improvements, for example he's looking into 
> > > > > > > improving the
> > > > > > > comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
> > > > > > > It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this 
> > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very 
> > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial 
> > > > > > > vendor and
> > > > > > > it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What 
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > be better suited?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
> > > > > > > [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
> > > > > > > [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that 
> > > > > > > Clearlooks has
> > > > > > > many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
> > > > > > > [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
> > > > > > > http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > > > > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > > > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Samuel Abels]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 21:01 +, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 19:52 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> > I have to admit I only looked at the screenshot at g-l.o. Now I wanted
> > to try it out but got hit by this bug
> > 
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413
> 
> Looks suspiciously like the bug where not all gconf notifiers are
> restored after a gconfd restart, which happens when you upgrade a
> package.  Killing gconfd and gnome-settings-daemon should fix it.

Ah, this time that worked here, but I know for sure that even a reboot
does not help my PC at work.
If it is the gconf notification bug, maybe it's possible that
theme-manager breaks something if receives only part of the
notifications? (I don't even know which notifications there are, so its
a very wild guess) Now switching around more, the bug reappeared
already.

However, since I was able to catch a glimpse of the Clearlooks theme.
It's still a far way to go if we want to beat OS-X though. We probably
need to wait for better engines, I don't think it's a realistic short
term goal.

Anyway, I agree that this is definitely better than the current default,
so let it come.
I still think that would make a better icon theme:
http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853
It's not yet complete though.

-Samuel
-- 
 --
|  Samuel Abels   |   http://www.debain.org|
| spam ad debain dod org  | knipknap ad jabber dod org |
 --
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Ross Burton]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 19:52 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> I have to admit I only looked at the screenshot at g-l.o. Now I wanted
> to try it out but got hit by this bug
> 
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413

Looks suspiciously like the bug where not all gconf notifiers are
restored after a gconfd restart, which happens when you upgrade a
package.  Killing gconfd and gnome-settings-daemon should fix it.

If it is that bug, it's been fixed in G2.10 and at some point we'll
backport the patch to Sid.

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Samuel Abels]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 14:38 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> >http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413
> >
> >again. I just don't get it, on every single one of my GNOME
> >installations (all of which are Debian Sarge or Sid) this happens at
> >least sometimes. I seem to be the only person though, so maybe I am
> >doing something wrong. I only click and drag though, so I would guess
> >there's not much to go wrong with it.
> 
> Did you actually install the theme engine?

The Smokey and Industrial themes/engines were installed through Apt and
the clearlooks engine was installed
into /usr/local/lib/gtk-2.0/gtk-2.4/engines/libclearlooks*. I also tried
a link from /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/engines/libclearlooks* (which is
where the Apt-installed engines are), but to no avail.

-Samuel
-- 
 --
|  Samuel Abels   |   http://www.debain.org|
| spam ad debain dod org  | knipknap ad jabber dod org |
 --
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Sean Middleditch]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 19:52 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 12:32 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
>> I'm not fond of the colors in the screenshot you're referring to, but
>> I do like the engine a lot.  I'm currently using the ClearlooksBluey
>> theme, which ships with Clearlooks.
>
>I have to admit I only looked at the screenshot at g-l.o. Now I wanted
>to try it out but got hit by this bug
>
>http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413
>
>again. I just don't get it, on every single one of my GNOME
>installations (all of which are Debian Sarge or Sid) this happens at
>least sometimes. I seem to be the only person though, so maybe I am
>doing something wrong. I only click and drag though, so I would guess
>there's not much to go wrong with it.

Did you actually install the theme engine?  i.e., did you compile it,
and install it, and install it to the correct prefix?  Theme engines
must be installed like software, and can't be installed with the theme
manager capplet.  Using a theme with an uninstalled engine can have
weird effects similar to what you describe.
-- 
Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Next Generation Themeing (was Re: Exciting GNOME?)

[Gabriel Bauman]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 17:57 +, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Its an improvement over bluecurve but not a quantum leap in themes. All 
> the Gnome themes I have seen lack sex appeal and reinforce the view that 
> its all very bland (which is okay for a corporate desktop but boring to 
> everyone else).

I don't want a sexy, eye catching theme for my widgets, thanks. I want
widgets that fit together so well that the *overall look* of my UI is
absolutely slick. I want the overall 'feel' of everything I see to be
consistent, simple, and well put-together.

Apple has done this very well. Unfortunately, people seem to look at the
Mac UI and fixate on the 'symptoms' of its coolness ("Ooo! Shiny glassy
buttons and bright bright bluuue!"), instead of looking at the rules
that were followed and the consistency of design that make Aqua more
than the sum of its parts. Apple *uses* throbbing buttons and color to
present information, not necessarily because it looks cool.

What I would like to see is an effort at establishing a single unified
GNOME look and feel (metacity theme, gtk theme, iconset, cursor set,
panel setup) that would be a hard default across all distros. A few
well-chosen colour schemes for it, stop installing 3rd-party themes by
default, downplay the "themes" capplet (only shown if a gconf key is
set) and we have something that is hopefully identifiable as GNOME by my
mom looking at a screen shot. Let the people who care about themes
maintain and distribute their stuff amongst themselves. No other major
desktop, be it Windows or Mac, makes theming obvious to the average
user; Windows needs a patched uxtheme dll, Mac needs third party
software. That's a GOOD thing.

It's only once we've started treating the UI look as a real, planned
part of the GNOME Desktop's identity (instead of just a "skin" to be
changed on a whim) that we will be able to really do new things and wow
people. Once we get this right, we can add the fancy visual
embellishments as Composite, Damage, et al. mature.

Please, let's not try to compete with Apple on a widget-by-widget basis
until we have a better foundation to build on.

-- 
Gabriel Bauman


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Next Generation Themeing (was Re: Exciting GNOME?)

[Elijah Newren]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:36:14 -0600, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It would be nice if we could just get a default theme that doesn't
> make users cringe, and worry about adding fancy stuff later as the
> technology becomes available.  I would really hate to see us miss
> yet another release because everybody was too busy discussing Star
> Trek future stuff.

Totally agreed.  We at least need a short term facelift for Gnome,
both because of aesthetics and because then we could finally end all
these interminable threads about themes...  Personally, I no longer
care what theme is picked--I'm just certain that I'm going to try to
help dogpile whatever looks like consensus so that we can move on. 
;-)

Cheers,
Elijah
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Samuel Abels]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 12:32 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
> I'm not fond of the colors in the screenshot you're referring to, but
> I do like the engine a lot.  I'm currently using the ClearlooksBluey
> theme, which ships with Clearlooks.

I have to admit I only looked at the screenshot at g-l.o. Now I wanted
to try it out but got hit by this bug

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413

again. I just don't get it, on every single one of my GNOME
installations (all of which are Debian Sarge or Sid) this happens at
least sometimes. I seem to be the only person though, so maybe I am
doing something wrong. I only click and drag though, so I would guess
there's not much to go wrong with it.

> There are quite a few different
> color schemes that come with it, and many of them are very nice.

Well, probably my expectations are just too high. I am still hoping for
something that does not look pathetic in comparison with OS-X. We may
need a much better theme engine than anything we have as per today to do
that though.

-Samuel
-- 
 --
|  Samuel Abels   |   http://www.debain.org|
| spam ad debain dod org  | knipknap ad jabber dod org |
 --
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Vincent Noel]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:17:38 -0500, Sean Middleditch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The biggest problem I see with the icons has nothing to do with them
> being too boring, but with some being just plain out poorly designed.
> Take the Eye of Gnome icon, for example.  What the hell is that thing?
> An eye in a gnome hat?
> 
> I'd much rather see some more work go into updating some of the old
> icons to the new clean, usable style that newer icons all have, then is
> seeing all the existing great icons tossed out just to come up with some
> colorful but useless set of icons.
I guess the best thing to do might be to just file a bug when we find
such icons, that are just leftovers from an ancient era :-) The Eye of
Gnome one was filed as bug #167087.

Cheers
Vincent
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Next Generation Themeing (was Re: Exciting GNOME?)

[Shaun McCance]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 17:57 +, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Samuel Abels wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >>>In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> >>>(http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> >>>through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement.
> > 
> > 
> > Then I guess I am pretty alone when I don't feel that this is an
> > improvement?
> > 
> 
> Its an improvement over bluecurve but not a quantum leap in themes. All 
> the Gnome themes I have seen lack sex appeal and reinforce the view that 
> its all very bland (which is okay for a corporate desktop but boring to 
> everyone else).
> 
> I do hope we can look forward to being innovative themewise rather than 
> just playing catchup all the time. I would guess MS will probably enable 
> XAML to include shading and lighting objects via Avalon (maybe even 
> embedding shading lanuguages within XAML?) so I expect Longhorn to look 
> very very pretty and possibly photorealistic.
> 
> It would be nice if we could beat MS here and be the first out of the 
> door with more photorealistic themes.

It would be nice if we could just get a default theme that doesn't
make users cringe, and worry about adding fancy stuff later as the
technology becomes available.  I would really hate to see us miss
yet another release because everybody was too busy discussing Star
Trek future stuff.

--
Shaun


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Shaun McCance]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 18:08 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> > > (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> > > through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement.
> 
> Then I guess I am pretty alone when I don't feel that this is an
> improvement?
> 
> I was taught green with a slight amount of brown is "dirt green" ;).
> Seriously, even with different colours IMO that theme doesn't look more
> modern than the current default, or most of the other themes on
> gnome-look.
> 
> It is the highest rated theme on g-l.o though, so many people seem to
> like it. *sigh*, I wish everybody had as good a flavor as me ;).

I'm not fond of the colors in the screenshot you're referring to, but
I do like the engine a lot.  I'm currently using the ClearlooksBluey
theme, which ships with Clearlooks.  There are quite a few different
color schemes that come with it, and many of them are very nice.

--
Shaun


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Next Generation Themeing (was Re: Exciting GNOME?)

[Jamie McCracken]

Samuel Abels wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:

In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
(http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement.

Then I guess I am pretty alone when I don't feel that this is an
improvement?
Its an improvement over bluecurve but not a quantum leap in themes. All 
the Gnome themes I have seen lack sex appeal and reinforce the view that 
its all very bland (which is okay for a corporate desktop but boring to 
everyone else).

I do hope we can look forward to being innovative themewise rather than 
just playing catchup all the time. I would guess MS will probably enable 
XAML to include shading and lighting objects via Avalon (maybe even 
embedding shading lanuguages within XAML?) so I expect Longhorn to look 
very very pretty and possibly photorealistic.

It would be nice if we could beat MS here and be the first out of the 
door with more photorealistic themes.

jamie.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Samuel Abels]

On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> > (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> > through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement.

Then I guess I am pretty alone when I don't feel that this is an
improvement?

I was taught green with a slight amount of brown is "dirt green" ;).
Seriously, even with different colours IMO that theme doesn't look more
modern than the current default, or most of the other themes on
gnome-look.

It is the highest rated theme on g-l.o though, so many people seem to
like it. *sigh*, I wish everybody had as good a flavor as me ;).

-Samuel
-- 
 --
|  Samuel Abels   |   http://www.debain.org|
| spam ad debain dod org  | knipknap ad jabber dod org |
 --
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Mystilleef]

Indeed, some of the better pixmap themes are designed by Jip.
gonxical, for example, is a high quality professional theme. Arguably
the best gnome theme I've come across.


On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:54:51 +0100, Miroslav Silovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The combination of the little-known themes I'm using currently:
> 
> Gtk2 - Perseid, from http://jp.bizet.free.fr/themes/gtk2.html (for some
> reason, this theme isn't on gnome-look nor at art.gnome.org, as far as I
> could tell).
> 
> Metacity: RMilk (available from gnome-look).
> 
> My point: I think that some really great themes can for some reason rot
> in obscurity, as things now stand. I think it'd really improve
> Gnome-look.org if external links section was expanded. Currently it
> doesn't even link art.gnome.org (again, as far as I could tell).
> 
> Miro
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 


-- 
"My logic is undeniable."
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Daniel Borgmann]

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 11:48 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
>Site note: where's the best place to post feedback/suggestions for 
>ClearLooks? I didn't want to start a theme-nitpick sub-thread here.

Probably either here:
http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527 or by mailing
the author directly at remenic at gmail.com. I think he's currently
getting more feedback than he'll ever be able to respond to. ;)

-- 
Daniel Borgmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Steven Garrity]

Jeff Waugh wrote:

In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
(http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement. I'm probably
going to suggest we cut Fedora over to it, as its both clearly an
iteration of Bluecurve (which we use as default today) and quite a lovely
change.
I've been looking very seriously at Clearlooks for Ubuntu, too. I will have
to send a list of suggestions to the author. :-)
I was going to comment that we weren't hearing from the key artists here 
(ubuntu, Novell, RedHat, etc.). Surely these guys have some plans in 
mind (Garrett, Jimmac, Thuomas, etc.).

That said, I'm glad to see Jeff and Seth chime in (especially since it 
looks like there could be some rough consensus).

ClearLook is indeed quite nice. I have some ideas for improvements and 
I'm sure others would too. What I'd *really* like to see is the artists 
and RedHat, Novell, and all of the volunteers working on small and 
subtitle refinements/optimizations to a common theme like this one.

+1
Site note: where's the best place to post feedback/suggestions for 
ClearLooks? I didn't want to start a theme-nitpick sub-thread here.

Cheers,
Steven Garrity
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Xavier Bestel]

Le mercredi 16 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 14:54 +0100, Miroslav Silovic a Ãcrit :
> The combination of the little-known themes I'm using currently:
> 
> Gtk2 - Perseid, from http://jp.bizet.free.fr/themes/gtk2.html (for some 
> reason, this theme isn't on gnome-look nor at art.gnome.org, as far as I 
> could tell).

I find gnoxical really good, even if it has a weird name :)
Here is the screenshot:


BTW, the BeOS rework from which it's inspired,
, isn't too bad, even if
it seems to have some usability problems.

Xav


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller]

Nuvola is today in gnome-themes-extras. I am going to move it into
gnome-themes if the maintainers of that package approve the move and
make a new final release of g-t-e without Nuvola.

This means that while it will not be the default theme for GNOME it 
will be part of a default installation. 

http://librsvg.sourceforge.net/theme.php shows how the metatheme
currently look.

Christian

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:23 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
> Look at this:
> http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358
> 
> A nice icon theme. Colors and Life
> 
> Everaldo.
> 
> Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:09 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> > Yes... it is nice and clean... but where is "life" and "color"?
> > "Clean" is good when your work 8 or more hours on a computer but if you
> > user 1 hour per day to read your mail "Clean" sounds like a "Ugly".
> > 
> > I like "etiquette" but now is time to thinking like a "END USER". Or
> > GNOME and Linux always is for "hackers"... The KDE team is on another
> > way, the way for "end users"... and GNOME?
> > 
> > Everaldo.
> > 
> > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 21:57 +0100, MichaÃl Arnauts escreveu:
> > > I think the new etiquette icon theme is quite attractive... It's still
> > > clean like the default Gnome one, but it has a refreshing new look...
> > > Especially the mime-types... I love it...
> > > 
> > > http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:06:17 -0200, Everaldo Canuto
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.
> > > > 
> > > > Everaldo.
> > > > 
> > > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> > > > > This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu 
> > > > > need
> > > > > to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
> > > > >
> > > > > Everaldo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> > > > > > >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> > > > > > >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve 
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> never look back.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what 
> > > > > > >identifies
> > > > > > >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, 
> > > > > > >legally
> > > > > > >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
> > > > > > Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
> > > > > > Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
> > > > > > also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
> > > > > > voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded 
> > > > > > scrollbars[3]
> > > > > > and some other improvements, for example he's looking into 
> > > > > > improving the
> > > > > > comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
> > > > > > It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this 
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very 
> > > > > > popular
> > > > > > for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial 
> > > > > > vendor and
> > > > > > it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What 
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > be better suited?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
> > > > > > [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
> > > > > > [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that 
> > > > > > Clearlooks has
> > > > > > many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
> > > > > > [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
> > > > > > http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > > > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > > > 
> > > > ___
> > > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

___
deskto

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Miroslav Silovic]

The combination of the little-known themes I'm using currently:
Gtk2 - Perseid, from http://jp.bizet.free.fr/themes/gtk2.html (for some 
reason, this theme isn't on gnome-look nor at art.gnome.org, as far as I 
could tell).

Metacity: RMilk (available from gnome-look).
My point: I think that some really great themes can for some reason rot 
in obscurity, as things now stand. I think it'd really improve 
Gnome-look.org if external links section was expanded. Currently it 
doesn't even link art.gnome.org (again, as far as I could tell).

   Miro
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement. I'm probably
> going to suggest we cut Fedora over to it, as its both clearly an
> iteration of Bluecurve (which we use as default today) and quite a lovely
> change.

I've been looking very seriously at Clearlooks for Ubuntu, too. I will have
to send a list of suggestions to the author. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: April 18th-23rdhttp://linux.conf.au/
 
   "I think of [commercial Open Source development] as being the biggest
 private investment in public works in decades." - Andrew Tridgell
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Seth Nickell]

> I was working under the impression having less major colours is a good
> thing. From memory, the icons are done using the HIG palette with some
> intermediate colours for gradients and such.
> 
> Designers I have met will tell you when doing a design, pick a small
> number of colours and stick with them. It creates a feeling of
> uniformity throughout a publication or website (or GNOME Desktop).

It does depend on what you're trying to convey. Using a rainbow of
colours conveys a message (perhaps one that's harder to control)  just
as using a limited pallette sends a message. Boxes of crayons are very
common stock images for a reason! Lots of colour can be very pleasant
if its done well. Using only a couple base colours does make life a
lot easier if, like me obviously, you're not a visual designer. Given
that the "pallette" that a theme designer creates (i.e. a set of
widgets and icons) will be used and recombined in lots of different
ways, its probably a lot more dangerous to use a lot of colours. They
just don't have the control. Also, a nice bright button looks good
once, twice, thrice, and after the 100th time you've seen the same
damn button you want to kill yourself.

On the whole, I feel KDE's large numbers of colors are not used to
very good effect. Their use of bright colors, on the other hand, does
have some nice effects (as shown by Jeff's list of shots).

-Seth
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Seth Nickell]

Both Novell (as Nat and Jimmac have stated before) and Red Hat (at
this point, people weren't in the beginning, but its now Fedora, not
RH) are happy with the use of Industrial or Bluecurve, respectively
(though bluecurve *might* have to be called something different as
bluecurve is TMed AFAIK). That said, while Bluecurve is a lovely theme
with a lot of things that recommend it as a default sort of theme, the
grey is going to look dated in a few years (if it doesn't already).

In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
(http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just
found through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement. I'm
probably going to suggest we cut Fedora over to it, as its both
clearly an iteration of Bluecurve (which we use as default today) and
quite a lovely change.

-Seth

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:13:50 -0500, Pat Suwalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> > Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
> > never look back.
> >
> > Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> 
> I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies
> RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally
> possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
> 
> --Pat
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 
>
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Davyd Madeley]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 16:21 -0500, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> This isn't the place to start a KDE/GNOME flamewar. End users is very
> general. Everyone likes something different. The current desktop
> trendiness is to be flashy with colors and stuff. OS X doesn't really
> have that much color. It's just a very well done interface. Making
> things shiny with a billion colors doesn't mean it is better.

I was working under the impression having less major colours is a good
thing. From memory, the icons are done using the HIG palette with some
intermediate colours for gradients and such.

Designers I have met will tell you when doing a design, pick a small
number of colours and stick with them. It creates a feeling of
uniformity throughout a publication or website (or GNOME Desktop).

--d

-- 
Davyd Madeley  http://www.davyd.id.au/

PGP Fingerprint 
08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118  C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Daniel Borgmann]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:11 -0800, Gabriel Bauman wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
>> Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks? Someone mentioned it at the
>> Wiki, I tried it and it totally blew me away! 
>
>Wow. I have a new default theme. The only issue I have with it so far is
>a common one with most GTK engines: menu bars look funny when there is a
>toolbar bevel directly underneath them. If Clearlooks disabled the top
>bevel of toolbars when they appear below menu bars, I'd have no
>complaints at all :D

Yes, I agree. My latest suggestion to the author has been to try
something like this: http://213.133.111.182/Temp/MenuBar2.png I think it
would look more harmonic.
Anyways, if anyone has more comments about the theme I'd strongly
suggest to (also) mail them directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as that's the
author and he seems to like feedback a lot. :)

-- 
Daniel Borgmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

Ok.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 13:39 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru escreveu:
> >Look at this: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358
> >A nice icon theme. Colors and Life
> 
> Sorry, but this is just not "gnome". What we see in this icon theme is 
> cartoonish-style icons that have absolutely no consistency in terms of 
> orientation. It's a mix'n'mash.
> 
> IF the gnome icon theme is too change (personally I am against it at this 
> point), the icon theme used must have the SAME orientation for all icons.
> 
> The BeOS felt consistent on the desktop from the first sight, exactly 
> because all its icons had the same palette, same orientation, same design. 
> It felt _uniformed_. The icon theme you proposed has none of these 
> qualities.
> 
> Rgds,
> Eugenia


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Look at this: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358
A nice icon theme. Colors and Life
Sorry, but this is just not "gnome". What we see in this icon theme is 
cartoonish-style icons that have absolutely no consistency in terms of 
orientation. It's a mix'n'mash.

IF the gnome icon theme is too change (personally I am against it at this 
point), the icon theme used must have the SAME orientation for all icons.

The BeOS felt consistent on the desktop from the first sight, exactly 
because all its icons had the same palette, same orientation, same design. 
It felt _uniformed_. The icon theme you proposed has none of these 
qualities.

Rgds,
Eugenia
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Spark wrote:
http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png
I agree. With some work, this can be the new default Gnome theme as long 
there is no work done on GTK+ itself to support better more eye candy 
themes. If the same gtk code is included for the next gnome, then we have no 
choice but to include something simpler, like ClearLooks.

Now, on to the theme itself, there are two things that need fixing:
1. The tab color for the inactive tabs is too dark. People with some eye 
sight problem will have a hard time to read the black text on the dark grey. 
Please make the dark grey color a bit less dark.
2. Tone up the colors of the grandients on the widgets. The grandient is NOT 
visible on any of my two LCDs. On CRTs is borderline visible, but on LCDs it 
is not and so they must be toned up a bit.
3. Add a dark-grey line between the menu and the toolbars. Make it more 
distinct than it is here: http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png

Everaldo wrote:
This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
I disagree. It is good usability to have a different background color for 
menu/toolbars because it gives the user easier distinction between the two 
instead of a flat look that you need to target with your mouse. It would be 
even better if a dark line (instead of the current light line) is also added 
between them.

I dont like Clearlooks menu style. I think that the original style menu
of BlueCurve is better.
Sorry, but I disagree again. The Bluecurve --while extremely consistent and 
well-designed-- is a flat-looking theme with no easy color distiction 
between widgets and background window color. It's so 90s.

Rgds,
Eugenia
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

I am not intent to start a flamewar... I really like to see GNOME with a
better look but I think that the "hackers" know what change themes and
is very important that default theme is designed to end-users like
"Windows XP" and "KDE 3.3". 

No flames please... I am a GNOME user. :)
I dont like when I show GNOME for my friends and they say "Hey Everaldo,
i dont like this... please reinstall a Windows pirate because it is more
nice than this".

Everaldo.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 16:21 -0500, Rodney Dawes escreveu:
> This isn't the place to start a KDE/GNOME flamewar. End users is very
> general. Everyone likes something different. The current desktop
> trendiness is to be flashy with colors and stuff. OS X doesn't really
> have that much color. It's just a very well done interface. Making
> things shiny with a billion colors doesn't mean it is better.
> 
> -- dobey
> 
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 18:46 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Ok... the icons are not ugly but need more colors, I say one more time,
> > the end users like colors and because this some users like Kde Icons.
> > 
> > End users dont like gray desktop and for a moment (except for Fedora
> > users) the "G" of GNOME is a "G"ray.
> > 
> > Everaldo.
> > 
> 
> 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Rodney Dawes]

This isn't the place to start a KDE/GNOME flamewar. End users is very
general. Everyone likes something different. The current desktop
trendiness is to be flashy with colors and stuff. OS X doesn't really
have that much color. It's just a very well done interface. Making
things shiny with a billion colors doesn't mean it is better.

-- dobey

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 18:46 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ok... the icons are not ugly but need more colors, I say one more time,
> the end users like colors and because this some users like Kde Icons.
> 
> End users dont like gray desktop and for a moment (except for Fedora
> users) the "G" of GNOME is a "G"ray.
> 
> Everaldo.
> 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

Look at this:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358

A nice icon theme. Colors and Life

Everaldo.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:09 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> Yes... it is nice and clean... but where is "life" and "color"?
> "Clean" is good when your work 8 or more hours on a computer but if you
> user 1 hour per day to read your mail "Clean" sounds like a "Ugly".
> 
> I like "etiquette" but now is time to thinking like a "END USER". Or
> GNOME and Linux always is for "hackers"... The KDE team is on another
> way, the way for "end users"... and GNOME?
> 
> Everaldo.
> 
> Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 21:57 +0100, MichaÃl Arnauts escreveu:
> > I think the new etiquette icon theme is quite attractive... It's still
> > clean like the default Gnome one, but it has a refreshing new look...
> > Especially the mime-types... I love it...
> > 
> > http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:06:17 -0200, Everaldo Canuto
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.
> > > 
> > > Everaldo.
> > > 
> > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> > > > This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
> > > > to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
> > > >
> > > > Everaldo.
> > > >
> > > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> > > > > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> > > > > >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> > > > > >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve 
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> never look back.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what 
> > > > > >identifies
> > > > > >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally
> > > > > >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at 
> > > > > the
> > > > > Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
> > > > > Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
> > > > > Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
> > > > > also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
> > > > > voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded 
> > > > > scrollbars[3]
> > > > > and some other improvements, for example he's looking into improving 
> > > > > the
> > > > > comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
> > > > > It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this engine
> > > > > simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very 
> > > > > popular
> > > > > for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial vendor 
> > > > > and
> > > > > it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What 
> > > > > could
> > > > > be better suited?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
> > > > > [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
> > > > > [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that Clearlooks 
> > > > > has
> > > > > many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
> > > > > [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
> > > > > http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > >
> 
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

I dont like Clearlooks menu style. I think that the original style menu
of BlueCurve is better.

Everaldo.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 13:11 -0800, Gabriel Bauman escreveu:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks? Someone mentioned it at the
> > Wiki, I tried it and it totally blew me away! 
> 
> Wow. I have a new default theme. The only issue I have with it so far is
> a common one with most GTK engines: menu bars look funny when there is a
> toolbar bevel directly underneath them. If Clearlooks disabled the top
> bevel of toolbars when they appear below menu bars, I'd have no
> complaints at all :D
> 
> Thanks for the pointer, Daniel.
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Gabriel Bauman]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks? Someone mentioned it at the
> Wiki, I tried it and it totally blew me away! 

Wow. I have a new default theme. The only issue I have with it so far is
a common one with most GTK engines: menu bars look funny when there is a
toolbar bevel directly underneath them. If Clearlooks disabled the top
bevel of toolbars when they appear below menu bars, I'd have no
complaints at all :D

Thanks for the pointer, Daniel.

-- 
Gabriel Bauman


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

Yes... it is nice and clean... but where is "life" and "color"?
"Clean" is good when your work 8 or more hours on a computer but if you
user 1 hour per day to read your mail "Clean" sounds like a "Ugly".

I like "etiquette" but now is time to thinking like a "END USER". Or
GNOME and Linux always is for "hackers"... The KDE team is on another
way, the way for "end users"... and GNOME?

Everaldo.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 21:57 +0100, MichaÃl Arnauts escreveu:
> I think the new etiquette icon theme is quite attractive... It's still
> clean like the default Gnome one, but it has a refreshing new look...
> Especially the mime-types... I love it...
> 
> http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853
> 
> 
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:06:17 -0200, Everaldo Canuto
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.
> > 
> > Everaldo.
> > 
> > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> > > This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
> > > to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
> > >
> > > Everaldo.
> > >
> > > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> > > > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> > > > >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> > > > >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
> > > > >> never look back.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> > > > >
> > > > >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies
> > > > >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally
> > > > >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
> > > >
> > > > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at the
> > > > Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
> > > > Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
> > > > Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
> > > > also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
> > > > voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded scrollbars[3]
> > > > and some other improvements, for example he's looking into improving the
> > > > comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
> > > > It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this engine
> > > > simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very popular
> > > > for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial vendor and
> > > > it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What could
> > > > be better suited?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
> > > > [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
> > > > [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that Clearlooks has
> > > > many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
> > > > [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
> > > > http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > 
> > ___
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> >


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Michaël Arnauts]

I think the new etiquette icon theme is quite attractive... It's still
clean like the default Gnome one, but it has a refreshing new look...
Especially the mime-types... I love it...

http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:06:17 -0200, Everaldo Canuto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.
> 
> Everaldo.
> 
> Em Ter, 2005-02-15 às 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> > This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
> > to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
> >
> > Everaldo.
> >
> > Em Ter, 2005-02-15 às 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> > > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> > > >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> > > >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
> > > >> never look back.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> > > >
> > > >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies
> > > >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally
> > > >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
> > >
> > > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at the
> > > Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
> > > Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
> > > Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
> > > also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
> > > voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded scrollbars[3]
> > > and some other improvements, for example he's looking into improving the
> > > comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
> > > It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this engine
> > > simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very popular
> > > for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial vendor and
> > > it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What could
> > > be better suited?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
> > > [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
> > > [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that Clearlooks has
> > > many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
> > > [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
> > > http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
> > >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

Hi,

Ok... the icons are not ugly but need more colors, I say one more time,
the end users like colors and because this some users like Kde Icons.

End users dont like gray desktop and for a moment (except for Fedora
users) the "G" of GNOME is a "G"ray.

Everaldo.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 20:27 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
> --- Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Are they icons really that
> bad?  Is it just the folders that most people
> > find boring?  Most the icons
> seem pretty nice to me.
> > 
> 
> I think the GNOME Icons are on the whole really
> good, and I'd strongly resist moving to some gooey kde-like icon theme.  I
> do tend to find the folder a bit boring, however.  My current setup uses the
> suede[1] icon them, which uses standard GNOME icons for most things (i think),
> but the folder icon is just much more appealing to me, and still fairly 
> GNOME-like
> i think.
> 
> [1] http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=13430
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[jonner . 1979682]

--- Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Are they icons really that
bad?  Is it just the folders that most people
> find boring?  Most the icons
seem pretty nice to me.
> 

I think the GNOME Icons are on the whole really
good, and I'd strongly resist moving to some gooey kde-like icon theme.  I
do tend to find the folder a bit boring, however.  My current setup uses the
suede[1] icon them, which uses standard GNOME icons for most things (i think),
but the folder icon is just much more appealing to me, and still fairly 
GNOME-like
i think.

[1] http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=13430
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Sean Middleditch]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 18:06 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
>ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.

Are they icons really that bad?  Is it just the folders that most people
find boring?  Most the icons seem pretty nice to me.

The biggest problem I see with the icons has nothing to do with them
being too boring, but with some being just plain out poorly designed.
Take the Eye of Gnome icon, for example.  What the hell is that thing?
An eye in a gnome hat?

I'd much rather see some more work go into updating some of the old
icons to the new clean, usable style that newer icons all have, then is
seeing all the existing great icons tossed out just to come up with some
colorful but useless set of icons.

>
>Everaldo.
>
>Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
>> This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
>> to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
>> 
>> Everaldo.
>> 
>> Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
>> > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
>> > >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
>> > >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
>> > >> never look back.
>> > >> 
>> > >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
>> > >
>> > >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies 
>> > >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally 
>> > >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
>> > 
>> > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at the
>> > Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
>> > Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
>> > Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
>> > also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
>> > voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded scrollbars[3]
>> > and some other improvements, for example he's looking into improving the
>> > comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
>> > It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this engine
>> > simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very popular
>> > for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial vendor and
>> > it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What could
>> > be better suited?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
>> > [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
>> > [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that Clearlooks has
>> > many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
>> > [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
>> > http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> desktop-devel-list mailing list
>> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
>
>___
>desktop-devel-list mailing list
>desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
-- 
Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.

Everaldo.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
> to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
> 
> Everaldo.
> 
> Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> > >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> > >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
> > >> never look back.
> > >> 
> > >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> > >
> > >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies 
> > >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally 
> > >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
> > 
> > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at the
> > Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
> > Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
> > Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
> > also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
> > voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded scrollbars[3]
> > and some other improvements, for example he's looking into improving the
> > comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
> > It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this engine
> > simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very popular
> > for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial vendor and
> > it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What could
> > be better suited?
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
> > [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
> > [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that Clearlooks has
> > many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
> > [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
> > http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
> > 
> 
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.

Everaldo.

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> >> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
> >> never look back.
> >> 
> >> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
> >
> >I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies 
> >RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally 
> >possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.
> 
> Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at the
> Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
> Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
> Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
> also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
> voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded scrollbars[3]
> and some other improvements, for example he's looking into improving the
> comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
> It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this engine
> simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very popular
> for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial vendor and
> it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What could
> be better suited?
> 
> 
> [1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
> [2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
> [3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that Clearlooks has
> many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
> [4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
> http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png
> 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Alan Horkan]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dave Ahlswede wrote:

> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:31:43 -0500
> From: Dave Ahlswede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: Exciting GNOME?
>
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:11 +0100, Paolo Borelli wrote:
> > Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> > >More and more, I'm getting the balance of these two: The icons look good,
> > >but the colours are dull (which is somewhat on purpose, because we don't
> > >want to overwhelm the user, but they tend to come across very brown [1]).
> > >
> > >
> > yup, "brown" is the same comment I got... after asking it turned out
> > that the cause of this impression is not the whole icon theme, but just
> > the folder icon... what about making the folder icon more yellowish?
>
> As a slight counterproposal, could we perhaps offer folder icons in
> several basic colors, and have it selectable on a global, and then
> per-folder basis? (Possibly through the color/emblem selector) Perhaps
> the background color chosen for a folder could influence its icon
> color.).
>
> I know this is adding another preference, but picking a color seems
> relatively harmless. I envision a combobox at the bottom of the bottom
> of the icon theme selector that looks for gnome-fs-directory-,
> and contains a list of all s.
>
> Recolorable folders would be helpful for when you have a lot of folders
> (which seem to be the kind of icon that gets grouped together with other
> visually identical icons most often), and none of the available emblems
> seem quite right, or when you want to add distinction in addition to
> emblems, or are dealing with folders that have emblems assigned to them
> already (links, shared folders, nautilus-vcs controlled files).

I always liked being able to change the folder colour back when I was
using Mac OS Classic.  If I recall correctly you could also set any icon
you wanted for any file you liked, not just for shortcuts and such like
(it was in the Get Info dialog but it may have been more restricted than I
recall).  If you wanted to be really crazy you could automatically assign
the folder colour based on the folder contents, like a mood ring or
something (or like that lava lamp tool I read about which provided an
abstract view of system activity).  Okay so that last bit was crack but
coloured folders could be quite useful especially if the colours had some
kind of semantic meaning.

More recently I have seen thumbnailer programs (and windows XP i
think) that will take images/other files and superimpose thumbnails of
them on the parent folder.  Here's an example I grabbed thanks to google:
http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/winxpb2/graphics/screenshots/06_my_pictures.jpg

Certianly there is room for improvement here, I'd be surprised if the
Nautilus developers didn't already have some ideas in mind.

- Alan H.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Ross Burton]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks

Just in case anyone wants a look at this engine and uses Debian, I've
got packages in http://burtonini.com/debian, specifically:

http://www.burtonini.com/debian/unstable/gtk2-engines-clearlooks_0.2.2-1_i386.deb

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Daniel Borgmann]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
>Gabriel Bauman wrote:
>> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
>> never look back.
>> 
>> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
>
>I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies 
>RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally 
>possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.

Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks[1]? Someone mentioned it at the
Wiki[2], I tried it and it totally blew me away! It's based on
Bluecurve, but got more modern and fresh looks. It hardly looks like
Bluecurve anymore, besides some pixmaps and the menus. The author is
also very actively working on it and preparing a website including a
voting booth. The next version will have properly rounded scrollbars[3]
and some other improvements, for example he's looking into improving the
comboboxes, which traditionally look a bit like a mess[4] in Gtk.
It might sound overzealous, but my honest opinion is that this engine
simply smokes the competition (including Plastik, which is very popular
for good reason), the author is independent of any commercial vendor and
it's still rather new, so not many people know about it yet. What could
be better suited?


[1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527
[2] http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
[3] http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png (notice that Clearlooks has
many color schemes already, that's just one of them)
[4] I made this mockup to demonstrate the problem:
http://213.133.111.182/Temp/ComboBoxEntry.png

-- 
Daniel Borgmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Przemysław Sowa]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:00 -0800, Gabriel Bauman wrote:
>Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
>never look back.

Most folks I know remove GNOME and switch to KDE because they don't find
GNOME attractive with Bluecurve as default theme on Fedora or Red Hat. I
think this theme is depressive with it's gray colors ;-). 

-- 
PrzemysÅaw Sowa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

Hey guys,

Remember that not all user are technician and "normal end users" like
colors. The KDE themes and icons is very nice, I prefer GNOME but normal
users like a my girlfriend, my sister and my friends like colors.

Ok... somebody say me "hey install another theme, gnome-look theres a
lot of icons and themes". Remember that a normal user dont like to
modify default theme... 

I think that the best way to solve this problem is change default theme
of GTK and GNOME... for technician is easy to cahnge to other "clean"
theme but for end users no. 

"The best way is the better way for users".

Everaldo.
 

Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 04:31 -0500, Dave Ahlswede escreveu:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:11 +0100, Paolo Borelli wrote:
> > Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 
> > >More and more, I'm getting the balance of these two: The icons look good,
> > >but the colours are dull (which is somewhat on purpose, because we don't
> > >want to overwhelm the user, but they tend to come across very brown [1]).
> > >  
> > >
> > yup, "brown" is the same comment I got... after asking it turned out 
> > that the cause of this impression is not the whole icon theme, but just 
> > the folder icon... what about making the folder icon more yellowish?
> 
> As a slight counterproposal, could we perhaps offer folder icons in
> several basic colors, and have it selectable on a global, and then
> per-folder basis? (Possibly through the color/emblem selector) Perhaps
> the background color chosen for a folder could influence its icon
> color.). 
> 
> I know this is adding another preference, but picking a color seems
> relatively harmless. I envision a combobox at the bottom of the bottom
> of the icon theme selector that looks for gnome-fs-directory-,
> and contains a list of all s.
> 
> Recolorable folders would be helpful for when you have a lot of folders
> (which seem to be the kind of icon that gets grouped together with other
> visually identical icons most often), and none of the available emblems
> seem quite right, or when you want to add distinction in addition to
> emblems, or are dealing with folders that have emblems assigned to them
> already (links, shared folders, nautilus-vcs controlled files).
> 
> Or feel free to tell me I'm on crack here. :) 
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Pat Suwalski]

Gabriel Bauman wrote:
Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
never look back.
Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies 
RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally 
possible or not. The same applies to Ximian/Novell and Industrial.

--Pat
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Gabriel Bauman]

Has Bluecurve (both GTK theme and iconset) ever been considered as a
default theme for GNOME? It has to be the slickest and most consistent
of the current crop - no huge bevels and gradients for controls, and
nice, colourful icons. My only complaint with it is that the icons
aren't available in SVG form.

Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
never look back.

Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?

-- 
Gabriel Bauman


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Dave Ahlswede]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:11 +0100, Paolo Borelli wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> >More and more, I'm getting the balance of these two: The icons look good,
> >but the colours are dull (which is somewhat on purpose, because we don't
> >want to overwhelm the user, but they tend to come across very brown [1]).
> >  
> >
> yup, "brown" is the same comment I got... after asking it turned out 
> that the cause of this impression is not the whole icon theme, but just 
> the folder icon... what about making the folder icon more yellowish?

As a slight counterproposal, could we perhaps offer folder icons in
several basic colors, and have it selectable on a global, and then
per-folder basis? (Possibly through the color/emblem selector) Perhaps
the background color chosen for a folder could influence its icon
color.). 

I know this is adding another preference, but picking a color seems
relatively harmless. I envision a combobox at the bottom of the bottom
of the icon theme selector that looks for gnome-fs-directory-,
and contains a list of all s.

Recolorable folders would be helpful for when you have a lot of folders
(which seem to be the kind of icon that gets grouped together with other
visually identical icons most often), and none of the available emblems
seem quite right, or when you want to add distinction in addition to
emblems, or are dealing with folders that have emblems assigned to them
already (links, shared folders, nautilus-vcs controlled files).

Or feel free to tell me I'm on crack here. :) 

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Samuel Abels]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 21:45 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> >I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
> >look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
> >mess with the icon theme!
> 
> Fully agreed. The default wm is not good (difficult to click its buttons) 
> and both the Simple and Default widget themes leave much to be desired. But 
> the icon theme rocks and it should not be changed IMHO.

I liked the default either, but am somehow weary of the smooth palette.
I found this:

http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853

to be a good compromise between "shiny" and "soft".
The icons are very clear from a usability point of view. It's also voted
fairly good, so many people seem to like it.

I personally like this:
http://www.rad-e8.com/downloads/icn/snowe/
style most though ;).

-Samuel
-- 
 --
|  Samuel Abels   |   http://www.debain.org|
| spam ad debain dod org  | knipknap ad jabber dod org |
 --
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Paolo Borelli]

Jeff Waugh wrote:
More and more, I'm getting the balance of these two: The icons look good,
but the colours are dull (which is somewhat on purpose, because we don't
want to overwhelm the user, but they tend to come across very brown [1]).
 

yup, "brown" is the same comment I got... after asking it turned out 
that the cause of this impression is not the whole icon theme, but just 
the folder icon... what about making the folder icon more yellowish?

ciao
   Paolo
- Jeff
[1] Isn't that amusing!
 

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Luca Ferretti]

Il giorno lun, 14-02-2005 alle 21:45 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru ha
scritto:
> >I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
> >look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
> >mess with the icon theme!
> 
> Fully agreed. The default wm is not good (difficult to click its buttons) 
> and both the Simple and Default widget themes leave much to be desired. But 
> the icon theme rocks and it should not be changed IMHO. The KDE noia/crystal 
> icons are not as uniformed, most don't even have the same orientation which 
> is very important for an icon set for a specific distribution of software.

Apart the "current icon theme rocks" motivation (I agree), widgets,
windows and icons theme should be orthogonal: when I choose to change
the widgets appearance, _only_ the widget appearance should change.

GTK+ >= 2.4 supports stock icons management via icon theme. I hope theme
maker/packager will stop to provide gtk stock icons via gtkrc. This is
bad. 

-- 
Luca Ferretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
mess with the icon theme!
Fully agreed. The default wm is not good (difficult to click its buttons) 
and both the Simple and Default widget themes leave much to be desired. But 
the icon theme rocks and it should not be changed IMHO. The KDE noia/crystal 
icons are not as uniformed, most don't even have the same orientation which 
is very important for an icon set for a specific distribution of software.

Eugenia
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Callum McKenzie]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 00:20 -0500, Dave Ahlswede wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:10 -0800, Rob Adams wrote:
> > I think that the gnome icons are absolutely gorgeous.
> 
> I agree-- I much prefer the soft, toned down colors to the bright
> rainbow that (for example) the Crystal SVG icons offer. 
> 
> I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
> look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
> mess with the icon theme!
> 
In terms of screen-shot appeal and first impressions, the icons are one
of the things that look drab. However the current set are very nice to
work with (I've been doing a review of the old theme-argument threads
and this opinion is almost universal).

I think this is one area where we are going to find it difficult to
strike a balance between easy to use and first impressions. None of the
current icon themes that we ship strike this balance in my opinion. 

 - Callum



___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Dave Ahlswede]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:10 -0800, Rob Adams wrote:
> I think that the gnome icons are absolutely gorgeous.

I agree-- I much prefer the soft, toned down colors to the bright
rainbow that (for example) the Crystal SVG icons offer. 

I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
mess with the icon theme!

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Rob Adams]

I think that the gnome icons are absolutely gorgeous.
Davyd Madeley wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:45 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
 

A new default theme for GTK solve some problem but another problem is a
default theme icon for GNOME... I ask some "normal end users" about the
screenshots and all users (100% of 11 users) say me that the GNOME icons
is not cool and needed more colors.
   

This is interesting. People from work who have been switched to GNOME
(and Linux) also comment on the icons straight away. However, they
usually find the icons (and the rest of the artwork) quite nice.
--d
 

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:45 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
> 
> > A new default theme for GTK solve some problem but another problem is a
> > default theme icon for GNOME... I ask some "normal end users" about the
> > screenshots and all users (100% of 11 users) say me that the GNOME icons
> > is not cool and needed more colors.
> 
> This is interesting. People from work who have been switched to GNOME (and
> Linux) also comment on the icons straight away. However, they usually find
> the icons (and the rest of the artwork) quite nice.

More and more, I'm getting the balance of these two: The icons look good,
but the colours are dull (which is somewhat on purpose, because we don't
want to overwhelm the user, but they tend to come across very brown [1]).

- Jeff

[1] Isn't that amusing!

-- 
UbuntuDownUnder: April 25th-30th  http://www.ubuntu.com/
 
   "Spam is about consent, not content." - Craig Sanders
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Davyd Madeley]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:45 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:

> A new default theme for GTK solve some problem but another problem is a
> default theme icon for GNOME... I ask some "normal end users" about the
> screenshots and all users (100% of 11 users) say me that the GNOME icons
> is not cool and needed more colors.

This is interesting. People from work who have been switched to GNOME
(and Linux) also comment on the icons straight away. However, they
usually find the icons (and the rest of the artwork) quite nice.

--d

-- 
Davyd Madeley  http://www.davyd.id.au/

PGP Fingerprint 
08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118  C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Everaldo Canuto]

Hi,

On last week my friend Willian (Willian is a lawyer) look at me using
Evolution and say: "Hey, this is a cool application. Can you install on
my computer?". I have install the Fedora 3 on his computer and he likes
the look of GNOME applications. The BlueCurve theme is nice for end
users and I think that the most big problem of GTK and GNOME is your
default theme... before BlueCurve and Fedora I dont like GTK too.

Another problem is that when you GNOME and open a QT application,
default theme of QT application looks nice but when you use KDE and open
a GTK application then the end users say: "This application is ugly!!
Arrrg!!".

A new default theme for GTK solve some problem but another problem is a
default theme icon for GNOME... I ask some "normal end users" about the
screenshots and all users (100% of 11 users) say me that the GNOME icons
is not cool and needed more colors.

Everaldo.


Em Seg, 2005-02-14 Ãs 13:31 +1300, Callum McKenzie escreveu:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
> > not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
> > are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:
> > 
> >   http://www.fireflybsd.com/screenshots/
> > 
> It strikes me that the single biggest difference between the screen
> shots is the theme (widget, icon, background and window manager). KDE is
> shinier and more eye-catching. It also has more buttons and so looks
> more detailed and interesting (in a screenshot), but I think this is a
> very secondary concern.
> 
> Should we start the default theme flame-fest again? I don't think so.
> How about we run a grand default-theme competition and let our community
> get involved with the design. (I envisage this being judged rather than
> voted on so we get something that is both usable and pretty, because
> votes only go to pretty.)
> 
>  - Callum
> 
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Alan Horkan]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Shaun McCance wrote:

> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:34:41 -0600
> From: Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: Exciting GNOME?
>
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 
> >
> > > Not sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though;
> > > the only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got
> > > Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O).  Do we want to
> > > advertise GNOME as a flashy eye-candy based Desktop? I always liked
> > > GNOME's clean, basic, simple interface; it was never cluttered with
> > > bouncing icons and flashing lights. That always appealed to me. Is the
> > > motivation for a flashy new theme to effectively gain more "market" share?
> >
> > Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It is
> > very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky with
> > every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so different.
>
> Well, the original OS X look was very, very ribbed.  It looked snazzy in
> the
> same way that gradients first looked cool when people first starting
> using
> them in themes.  But it sort of got on your nerves after a while.
>
> Subsequent versions of OS X have toned down the ribbing, and it's a
> great
> improvement.  Apple made a mistake and they fixed it.  Let's learn from
> that and just avoid the mistake altogether.

I believe Apple referred to them as *pinstripes*.

I wounldn't normally see fit to mention it but the term you used
unfortunately suggests something else completely different and given the
day it is today it might not be such a bad idea to remind people to be
particularly careful about their health.

:P

- Alan H
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Shaun McCance]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though;
> > the only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got
> > Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O).  Do we want to
> > advertise GNOME as a flashy eye-candy based Desktop? I always liked
> > GNOME's clean, basic, simple interface; it was never cluttered with
> > bouncing icons and flashing lights. That always appealed to me. Is the
> > motivation for a flashy new theme to effectively gain more "market" share?
> 
> Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It is
> very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky with
> every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so different.

Well, the original OS X look was very, very ribbed.  It looked snazzy in
the
same way that gradients first looked cool when people first starting
using
them in themes.  But it sort of got on your nerves after a while.

Subsequent versions of OS X have toned down the ribbing, and it's a
great
improvement.  Apple made a mistake and they fixed it.  Let's learn from
that and just avoid the mistake altogether.

--
Shaun


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> >Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It
> >is very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky
> >with every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so
> >different.
> 
> A lot of people are rather disturbed by the atrocities of the OS X Dock.
> It's got all stuff a good UI shouldn't - excessive bouncing icons,
> sanity-defying mouse-over behavior, concentration on aesthetics over
> organization, etc.  The Dock of course isn't part of Aqua... just noting
> that it's a big part of peoples' impressions with OS X, and it tends to
> cause bad impressions at that.

Theme, dude, theme.

- Jeff

-- 
GUADEC 2005: May 29th-31st   http://2005.guadec.org/
 
   "Socks for the foot menu!" - Liam Quin
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Sean Middleditch]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:

>Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It is
>very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky with
>every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so different.

A lot of people are rather disturbed by the atrocities of the OS X Dock.
It's got all stuff a good UI shouldn't - excessive bouncing icons,
sanity-defying mouse-over behavior, concentration on aesthetics over
organization, etc.  The Dock of course isn't part of Aqua... just noting
that it's a big part of peoples' impressions with OS X, and it tends to
cause bad impressions at that.

>
>- Jeff
>
-- 
Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> Not sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though;
> the only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got
> Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O).  Do we want to
> advertise GNOME as a flashy eye-candy based Desktop? I always liked
> GNOME's clean, basic, simple interface; it was never cluttered with
> bouncing icons and flashing lights. That always appealed to me. Is the
> motivation for a flashy new theme to effectively gain more "market" share?

Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It is
very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky with
every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so different.

- Jeff

-- 
gnome.conf.au 2005: April 19th http://live.gnome.au/Canberra2005
 
"...and did you know that Twisties have real cheese in them?" - Dave
"I didn't even think they had real twists in them!" - Andrew
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Rodney Dawes]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 19:36 +0100, Maciej Katafiasz wrote:
> Anything besides obvious "it needs to be distributed separately" thing?
> Does the fact that engines are compiled binaries ever cause compat
> problems?

There are always going to be compat issues, binary or not. You either
have a binary API or a string API, or some other API, that will require
compatibility on some level.

> On a related note, there was one (vague, but nevertheless very
> desirable) point on GTK+ 2.8 TODO list: "now we have cairo and all the
> goodness, make theme engine that would be far more flexible and allow us
> to specify declaratively what's currently being done via engines, fix
> all the currect shortcomings of theming and then get rid of all other
> engines". Is that still on radar, or got slipped into some unspecified
> future?

I personally don't care if metacity gets engines or not. It seems to do
well enough without them for now. However, I am very against removing
them from GTK+. There's nothing special that cairo gives us, that would
make removing the ability to have engines, any more possible than it is
now. In fact, I would prefer that they get extended, so that new widgets
can specify custom drawing routines. Sometimes, you need to completely
change the math/layout of a widget to get real themability.
Unfortunately, we don't have that.

-- dobey


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Maciej Katafiasz]

Dnia 14-02-2005, pon o godzinie 13:03 -0500, Havoc Pennington napisał:
> > Incidentally metacity is due for a bump in the theme version to add new 
> > and exciting capabilities built on Cairo and Gtk 2.8 after the branch.  
> > Talented and visionary eye-candy folks are being solicited.  Maybe 
> > metacity needs plugable metacity theme engines.
>
> No engines if we can possibly avoid it. Causes a lot of problems. I'd
> rather have JavaScript if it comes to that.

Anything besides obvious "it needs to be distributed separately" thing?
Does the fact that engines are compiled binaries ever cause compat
problems?

On a related note, there was one (vague, but nevertheless very
desirable) point on GTK+ 2.8 TODO list: "now we have cairo and all the
goodness, make theme engine that would be far more flexible and allow us
to specify declaratively what's currently being done via engines, fix
all the currect shortcomings of theming and then get rid of all other
engines". Is that still on radar, or got slipped into some unspecified
future?

Cheers,
Maciej

-- 
Maciej Katafiasz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Samuel Abels]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:43 -0500, Mystilleef wrote:
> A theme competition on gnome-look.org and art.gnome.org might be a
> good idea. The first rule should be, "No pixmap themes allowed!",
> however.

I wouldn't say that. If somebody comes up with a reasonable fast pixmap
engine the user wouldn't even have to notice. The existing pixmap engine
is however *extremely* slow - a notebook tab easily takes a complete
second to render on my P4 2.4 / Radeon 9800. I can recall a posting on
the themes list stating that the reason is nobody ever tried to optimize
it.

Either way, we need to make up at least /some/ rules from the beginning,
like

- What is the allow colour depth. (I suppose we need to think of
terminal clients supporting only 256 colours.)
- Is transparency allowed (IIRC widgets with rounded edges are likely to
cause problems in some scenarios).
- Possibly define a colour palette. Do we want to keep the current
default icon set? In which case the theme needs to complement it's
colours.
- ...?

-Samuel
-- 
 --
|  Samuel Abels   |   http://www.debain.org|
| spam ad debain dod org  | knipknap ad jabber dod org |
 --
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Havoc Pennington]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 09:35 -0800, Rob Adams wrote:
> Incidentally metacity is due for a bump in the theme version to add new 
> and exciting capabilities built on Cairo and Gtk 2.8 after the branch.  
> Talented and visionary eye-candy folks are being solicited.  Maybe 
> metacity needs plugable metacity theme engines.
> 

No engines if we can possibly avoid it. Causes a lot of problems. I'd
rather have JavaScript if it comes to that.

Havoc


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Mystilleef]

A theme competition on gnome-look.org and art.gnome.org might be a
good idea. The first rule should be, "No pixmap themes allowed!",
however. I can't stand most of them.



-- 
"My logic is undeniable."
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Rob Adams]

Incidentally metacity is due for a bump in the theme version to add new 
and exciting capabilities built on Cairo and Gtk 2.8 after the branch.  
Talented and visionary eye-candy folks are being solicited.  Maybe 
metacity needs plugable metacity theme engines.

-Rob
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 22:04 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
 

we should be looking at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no 
matching it. :-)
 

Fully agreed. That's how we should be thinking at all times. :)
BTW, about the theme thing, I had a suggestion a few months ago:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-September/msg00172.html 
(which obviously need more work to smooth it out)
Failing that, there's always this one: 
http://www.resexcellence.com/themes/butt_osigh/mes/01-25_mes20050121_lg.jpg 
;-) (joking, but it's interesting)
   

 I remember enjoying your mockup at the time, but commenting how
difficult it would be to code such a thing.  However, with the advent of
integrating gtk+ 2.8 with cairo, I think doing this becomes much easier,
and since cairo can have hardware acceleration, it could even be
fast! :-)
 

Eugenia
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
   


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Ed Mack]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, Link Dupont wrote:
> I think a competition is a good idea. Seems more likely than a long 
> thread on d-d-l to produce results (based on previous discussions about 
> themes on d-d-l). For what its worth, I never designed 
> SmoothGNOME/Glider with flashy, shiny, eye-candy effects in mind. Not 
> sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though; the 
> only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got 
> Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O).
> Do we want to advertise GNOME as a flashy eye-candy based Desktop? I 
> always liked GNOME's clean, basic, simple interface; it was never 
> cluttered with bouncing icons and flashing lights. That always appealed 
> to me. Is the motivation for a flashy new theme to effectively gain 
> more "market" share?
> 
> -Link
> 

Eye-candy and elegance are not mutually exclusive! Done properly (ala
Apple :)) they can really make people stop and look, who would have
otherwise scanned right past.

Ed Mack

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Link Dupont]

I think a competition is a good idea. Seems more likely than a long 
thread on d-d-l to produce results (based on previous discussions about 
themes on d-d-l). For what its worth, I never designed 
SmoothGNOME/Glider with flashy, shiny, eye-candy effects in mind. Not 
sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though; the 
only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got 
Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O).
Do we want to advertise GNOME as a flashy eye-candy based Desktop? I 
always liked GNOME's clean, basic, simple interface; it was never 
cluttered with bouncing icons and flashing lights. That always appealed 
to me. Is the motivation for a flashy new theme to effectively gain 
more "market" share?

-Link
On Feb 13, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Callum McKenzie wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
Hey,
Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME 
does
not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. 
They
are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:

  http://www.fireflybsd.com/screenshots/
It strikes me that the single biggest difference between the screen
shots is the theme (widget, icon, background and window manager). KDE 
is
shinier and more eye-catching. It also has more buttons and so looks
more detailed and interesting (in a screenshot), but I think this is a
very secondary concern.

Should we start the default theme flame-fest again? I don't think so.
How about we run a grand default-theme competition and let our 
community
get involved with the design. (I envisage this being judged rather than
voted on so we get something that is both usable and pretty, because
votes only go to pretty.)

 - Callum
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
--
Peace, love & penguins
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro]

On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 22:04 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
>>we should be looking at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no 
>>matching it. :-)
>
>Fully agreed. That's how we should be thinking at all times. :)
>
>BTW, about the theme thing, I had a suggestion a few months ago:
>http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-September/msg00172.html 
>(which obviously need more work to smooth it out)
>Failing that, there's always this one: 
>http://www.resexcellence.com/themes/butt_osigh/mes/01-25_mes20050121_lg.jpg 
>;-) (joking, but it's interesting)

  I remember enjoying your mockup at the time, but commenting how
difficult it would be to code such a thing.  However, with the advent of
integrating gtk+ 2.8 with cairo, I think doing this becomes much easier,
and since cairo can have hardware acceleration, it could even be
fast! :-)

>
>Eugenia
>
>
>___
>desktop-devel-list mailing list
>desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The universe is always one step beyond logic.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jamie McCracken]

Jeff Waugh wrote:

Particularly with GTK+ 2.8 on the horizon, we should be looking at
leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no matching it. :-)

[2] That has got to be OS X.

Also, a theme so good that it would unify vendor appearance of GNOME. So
good that vendors would be pathalogically stupid or so focused on their rear
intake not to adopt it.
The snag is any theme that is so awesome will probably be dog slow on 
the current theme engines. If we want the ultimate theme we would need 
an opengl theme engine (think dynamic lights, shadows, high quality 
textures all running at blistering speed) which would give us 
photorealistic quality (unlike all the cartoonish quality of most of the 
current crop).

With Cairo and Xorg this should now be possible technically. Of course 
for the poor sods that dont have accelerated opengl we will still need a 
sensible default for them.

jamie.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

we should be looking at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no 
matching it. :-)
Fully agreed. That's how we should be thinking at all times. :)
BTW, about the theme thing, I had a suggestion a few months ago:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-September/msg00172.html 
(which obviously need more work to smooth it out)
Failing that, there's always this one: 
http://www.resexcellence.com/themes/butt_osigh/mes/01-25_mes20050121_lg.jpg 
;-) (joking, but it's interesting)

Eugenia
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Callum McKenzie]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 14:30 +0900, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> Yeah, but I would like to hear about or participate in formulating plans
> for actively involving the right segments of the community.

This is where the plans start:

http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme

It is only ten minutes worth of brain-dump so far. More will come soon.

 - Callum


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> Particularly with GTK+ 2.8 on the horizon, we should be looking at
> leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no matching it. :-)

> [2] That has got to be OS X.

Also, a theme so good that it would unify vendor appearance of GNOME. So
good that vendors would be pathalogically stupid or so focused on their rear
intake not to adopt it.

- Jeff

-- 
UbuntuDownUnder: April 25th-30th  http://www.ubuntu.com/
 
   "A rest with a fermata is the moral opposite of the fast food
   restaurant with express lane." - James Gleick, Faster
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> > > Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push
> > > for a wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on
> > > art.gnome.org, gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and
> > > fortune for the winner could be interesting.
> > 
> > Donations welcome.
> 
> I thought Gnome Foundation contributions were mandatory for subscription
> to d-d-l! :) I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is.  Should
> we CC the foundation list?

No, I'm joking.

> > > However it all means nothing without the buying from the GNOME
> > > themeing community. We need them to be as excited as we are, since
> > > they'll be doing most of the work, no?
> > 
> > I can't imagine we'd exclude them, no.
> 
> Yeah, but I would like to hear about or participate in formulating plans
> for actively involving the right segments of the community.

It's about as scientific as this: We make a lot of noise. It doesn't get
much more challenging than that.

- Jeff

-- 
GUADEC 2005: May 29th-31st   http://2005.guadec.org/
 
   "(Hint: IRC clients don't usually do DVD and VCD playback)." - Bastien
   Nocera
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Ryan McDougall]

On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 16:14 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push for a
> > wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on art.gnome.org,
> > gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and fortune for the
> > winner could be interesting.
> 
> Donations welcome.

I thought Gnome Foundation contributions were mandatory for subscription
to d-d-l! :) I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is.
Should we CC the foundation list?
> 
> > However it all means nothing without the buying from the GNOME themeing
> > community. We need them to be as excited as we are, since they'll be doing
> > most of the work, no?
> 
> I can't imagine we'd exclude them, no.

Yeah, but I would like to hear about or participate in formulating plans
for actively involving the right segments of the community.
> 
> - Jeff
> 

Cheers,
Ryan

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Shaun McCance]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> Ryan McDougall wrote:
> > While the default theme *is* butt-ugly, I also recall there being some
> > concerns that its was more accessible or had less usability bugs or
> > something, and replacing it meant trying to fix a whole new slough of
> > bugs (can anyone correct me on this?).
> 
> If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate 
> about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to 
> get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new 
> accessibility issues (and get the artists working on refinements).

And this part is really important.  We didn't change the default theme
for 2.8 because we waited too long, and there was a lot of talk about
changing it right at the beginning of 2.9.  It didn't happen.

--
Shaun


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push for a
> wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on art.gnome.org,
> gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and fortune for the
> winner could be interesting.

Donations welcome.

> However it all means nothing without the buying from the GNOME themeing
> community. We need them to be as excited as we are, since they'll be doing
> most of the work, no?

I can't imagine we'd exclude them, no.

- Jeff

-- 
UbuntuDownUnder: April 25th-30th  http://www.ubuntu.com/
 
   "The Motif interface, with chunkier controls, felt more like a ghetto
   blaster." - Liam Quin
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Ryan McDougall]

On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 15:57 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > > get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new
> > > accessibility issues (and get the artists working on refinements).
> > 
> > My guess was that this is why Jeff raised this now :).
> 
> Indeed. But I don't think Glider and my slightly modified Industrial [1] are
> good enough. Particularly with GTK+ 2.8 on the horizon, we should be looking
> at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no matching it. :-)
> 
> - Jeff
> 
> [1] Die stupid name, die! ;-)
> [2] That has got to be OS X.
> 

Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push for
a wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on art.gnome.org,
gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and fortune for the
winner could be interesting.

However it all means nothing without the buying from the GNOME themeing
community. We need them to be as excited as we are, since they'll be
doing most of the work, no?

Cheers,
Ryan

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[janne]

mÃn 2005-02-14 klockan 15:57 +1100 skrev Jeff Waugh:
> 
> 
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > > get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new
> > > accessibility issues (and get the artists working on refinements).
> > 
> > My guess was that this is why Jeff raised this now :).
> 
> Indeed. But I don't think Glider and my slightly modified Industrial [1] are
...
> [1] Die stupid name, die! ;-)

Well, we need to dub it something.



-- 
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
 
Tel. (Japan) 090-3622 8920Dr. Jan MorÃn (mr)
  Dept. of Cognitive Science
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.morenLund, Sweden

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new
> > accessibility issues (and get the artists working on refinements).
> 
> My guess was that this is why Jeff raised this now :).

Indeed. But I don't think Glider and my slightly modified Industrial [1] are
good enough. Particularly with GTK+ 2.8 on the horizon, we should be looking
at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no matching it. :-)

- Jeff

[1] Die stupid name, die! ;-)
[2] That has got to be OS X.

-- 
UbuntuDownUnder: April 25th-30th  http://www.ubuntu.com/
 
  "Whoever wrote [the Twisted documentation] uses a vivid and interesting
 style of prose which triggers pleasure." - Francois Pinard
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Callum McKenzie]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate 
> about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to 
> get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new 
> accessibility issues (and get the artists working on refinements).
My guess was that this is why Jeff raised this now :).

 - Callum


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Steven Garrity]

Ryan McDougall wrote:
While the default theme *is* butt-ugly, I also recall there being some
concerns that its was more accessible or had less usability bugs or
something, and replacing it meant trying to fix a whole new slough of
bugs (can anyone correct me on this?).
If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate 
about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to 
get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new 
accessibility issues (and get the artists working on refinements).

Steven Garrity
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Ryan McDougall]

On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 13:31 +1300, Callum McKenzie wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
> > not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
> > are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:
> > 
> >   http://www.fireflybsd.com/screenshots/
> > 
> It strikes me that the single biggest difference between the screen
> shots is the theme (widget, icon, background and window manager). KDE is
> shinier and more eye-catching. It also has more buttons and so looks
> more detailed and interesting (in a screenshot), but I think this is a
> very secondary concern.

What strikes me is (except the evolution v. kmail screen) how much
simpler and uncluttered GNOME is compared to KDE (read usable)!

Keramic (?) looks like Fisher-Price silliness, but Plastik is the best
theme on Linux IMO.
> 
> Should we start the default theme flame-fest again? I don't think so.
> How about we run a grand default-theme competition and let our community
> get involved with the design. (I envisage this being judged rather than
> voted on so we get something that is both usable and pretty, because
> votes only go to pretty.)

Actually I recommended from the beginning on having someone(s) judge the
best for a new theme, but I recall being told that wasn't
'consensus'. :)

While the default theme *is* butt-ugly, I also recall there being some
concerns that its was more accessible or had less usability bugs or
something, and replacing it meant trying to fix a whole new slough of
bugs (can anyone correct me on this?).

I also found this 
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-
August/msg00238.html

which could/would/should be rendered obsolete by using GtkUIManager, no?

Perhaps we can rename default to GNOME-Usable or GNOME-guaranteed-to-
work-technically, and leave it as the default. The rename
$SPIFFY_NEW_THEME to GNOME-Purdy, and thus have two default themes for a
short $while. During that $while we close all bugs on GNOME-Purdy, then
migrate over to it as default. 

Perhaps $while = 6 months to a year?
> 
>  - Callum
> 

Cheers,
Ryan


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:44 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Agree (and we should ensure that the rules suggest the almost exclusive
> > use engine themes). I'll hack up a draft for this on the wiki. Who
> > should judge?  I definitely think we should rope jimmac and tigert into
> > it. :-)
> 
> Some people with a good sense of usability too. 

Was thinking after my previous mail, we'd need ajgenius and thos there, as
maintainers of gtk-engines and gnome-themes.

- Jeff

-- 
UbuntuDownUnder: April 25th-30th  http://www.ubuntu.com/
 
   "I think of [commercial Open Source development] as being the biggest
 private investment in public works in decades." - Andrew Tridgell
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Callum McKenzie]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:44 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Agree (and we should ensure that the rules suggest the almost exclusive use
> engine themes). I'll hack up a draft for this on the wiki. Who should judge?
> I definitely think we should rope jimmac and tigert into it. :-)
Some people with a good sense of usability too. 

 - Callum


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Jeff Waugh]

> It strikes me that the single biggest difference between the screen shots
> is the theme (widget, icon, background and window manager). KDE is shinier
> and more eye-catching. It also has more buttons and so looks more detailed
> and interesting (in a screenshot), but I think this is a very secondary
> concern.

Aye.

> Should we start the default theme flame-fest again? I don't think so.  How
> about we run a grand default-theme competition and let our community get
> involved with the design. (I envisage this being judged rather than voted
> on so we get something that is both usable and pretty, because votes only
> go to pretty.)

Agree (and we should ensure that the rules suggest the almost exclusive use
engine themes). I'll hack up a draft for this on the wiki. Who should judge?
I definitely think we should rope jimmac and tigert into it. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australiahttp://linux.conf.au/
 
   "Driving Miss Daisy. Best film of 1989. So said the academy. What does
that tell you?" - Spike Lee
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Callum McKenzie]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
> not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
> are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:
> 
>   http://www.fireflybsd.com/screenshots/
> 
It strikes me that the single biggest difference between the screen
shots is the theme (widget, icon, background and window manager). KDE is
shinier and more eye-catching. It also has more buttons and so looks
more detailed and interesting (in a screenshot), but I think this is a
very secondary concern.

Should we start the default theme flame-fest again? I don't think so.
How about we run a grand default-theme competition and let our community
get involved with the design. (I envisage this being judged rather than
voted on so we get something that is both usable and pretty, because
votes only go to pretty.)

 - Callum


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list