Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Maurizio Paglia]

Ross, my hair are almost white, I am sorry but you need a bigger effort in
order to discourage me 
Have a nice evening.
Maurizio

Il 22 ott 2017 19:36, "Ross Martinek"  ha scritto:

> Alex,
>
> I said I was an old curmudgeon. ;^] It’s only my opinion, based on my
> experience, not wisdom from on high, and while strongly held, I’ve no
> objection to being shown I’m in error, or that my conclusions aren’t
> supported by your or others’ data (as you did.)
>
> If you are talking about my comments on documentation, I really do
> identify and sympathize with those creating this delightful tool: writing
> documentation of something one understands thoroughly is very difficult, in
> part because of the very expertise needed to do so. It often feels as if
> one is stating the blatantly obvious, over and over again. I have all too
> much experience with that, and the other frustrations inherent in the
> process.
>
> I did not intend to denigrate the free, online documentation that exists,
> only to say that it could be better. If developers are going to work on
> something besides development, I think that is a better use of time. By
> comparison with other, similar, open source programs, GIMP’s  is better
> than many, if not most. It gets one off to a good start.
>
> I hesitated to mention a commercial product which actually does a good job
> of documentation. I have found The Book of GIMP, by LeCarme and Delvare to
> be an invaluable resource in learning GIMP. It’s expensive, but the
> software is free, and the book costs far less than most graphics programs
> (or at least it did when I bought it.) (Shameless plug, and no, I don’t get
> anything for it.)
>
> As for marketing, if that is a concern, the way Literature and Latte
> markets their products might be worth a look. Scrivener, their writing app,
> is phenomenal. It isn’t free, like GIMP, but it is very affordable. Would I
> pay the price of Scrivener for GIMP? As my physics prof was fond of saying,
> “That’s not only obvious, it’s an obvious, obvious.”
>
> And Maurizio, I also appreciate your enthusiasm. I just think it’s
> slightly misplaced. Don’t let my stentorian objections discourage you.
>
> Ross
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
> alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:
> >
> >> While there may be some PS features
> >> not available (yet?) in GIMP, the only advantage of PS I see is its
> >> documentation.
> >
> > Ross, I appreciate your loyalty to the project, but you aren't making
> > any friends right now :)))
> >
> > Alex
> > ___
> > gimp-user-list mailing list
> > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> > List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
>
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Ross Martinek]

Alex,

I said I was an old curmudgeon. ;^] It’s only my opinion, based on my 
experience, not wisdom from on high, and while strongly held, I’ve no objection 
to being shown I’m in error, or that my conclusions aren’t supported by your or 
others’ data (as you did.)

If you are talking about my comments on documentation, I really do identify and 
sympathize with those creating this delightful tool: writing documentation of 
something one understands thoroughly is very difficult, in part because of the 
very expertise needed to do so. It often feels as if one is stating the 
blatantly obvious, over and over again. I have all too much experience with 
that, and the other frustrations inherent in the process.

I did not intend to denigrate the free, online documentation that exists, only 
to say that it could be better. If developers are going to work on something 
besides development, I think that is a better use of time. By comparison with 
other, similar, open source programs, GIMP’s  is better than many, if not most. 
It gets one off to a good start.

I hesitated to mention a commercial product which actually does a good job of 
documentation. I have found The Book of GIMP, by LeCarme and Delvare to be an 
invaluable resource in learning GIMP. It’s expensive, but the software is free, 
and the book costs far less than most graphics programs (or at least it did 
when I bought it.) (Shameless plug, and no, I don’t get anything for it.)

As for marketing, if that is a concern, the way Literature and Latte markets 
their products might be worth a look. Scrivener, their writing app, is 
phenomenal. It isn’t free, like GIMP, but it is very affordable. Would I pay 
the price of Scrivener for GIMP? As my physics prof was fond of saying, “That’s 
not only obvious, it’s an obvious, obvious.”

And Maurizio, I also appreciate your enthusiasm. I just think it’s slightly 
misplaced. Don’t let my stentorian objections discourage you.

Ross


> On Oct 22, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:
> 
>> While there may be some PS features
>> not available (yet?) in GIMP, the only advantage of PS I see is its
>> documentation.
> 
> Ross, I appreciate your loyalty to the project, but you aren't making
> any friends right now :)))
> 
> Alex
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Ross Martinek wrote:

> I disagree completely. I am a “normal” user, and I do not think GIMP
> is dead. Quite the contrary. Adobe Photoshop is dead to the normal,
> or average, user. The only people using PS are either corporately
> supported or students—no one else can afford it.

"No one else" as in "lots and lots of freelancers who make their
living from illustration, design, digital photography etc."?

 > Where are the “have nots” going? To GIMP.

There are multiple options. GIMP is just one of them.

Affinity Photo is quickly gaining a dedicated user base for photo
manipulation. Black Ink, Krita and others are becoming popular options
for digital painting. And the list goes on.

> I know several successful artists who have abandoned PS for GIMP,
> and I’m aware of many more. I did two lectures on a particular aspect
> of fantasy art last March. Of those attending, two used PS because
> their employers paid for it. Of the rest, about five used GIMP. Everyone
> else wanted to know where to get it, and one PS user said he was going
> to recommend it to his employer.

Glad to hear that. Still a very small sampling.

> I get the distinct impression from what you say and how you say it that
> you work in marketing.

Well, I'm not Maurizio, but I do work in marketing, and my role with
GIMP could be qualified as PR. So I'm guessing that's
double-propaganda in your book.

> You can’t “tell the whole world,” but you can tell everyone you know, even
> if they don’t use such software. Someone they know might lament the state
> (EXPENSE) of Adobe and PS, at which point your non-artistic acquaintance
> says “Have you tried GIMP? Its free and  loves it!”
> Been there, done that. Have yet to hear anyone say, “Nah, I’ll stick with
> Photoshop.”

Your experience, if it's true, is different from lots and lots (and
lots) of cases I personally witnessed.

Alex
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Rick Strong wrote:

> • What is of far greater importance, IMHO, is functionality. Does it work as
> advertised? Yes.
> • Does it install easily? Is it stable? Critical to being accepted.
> • Is the interface well-designed (absolutely critical for usability)? Mostly
> (v 2.8).
> • Does it have a good manual/help system? Yes, once you get used to it.
> • Can the manual be better? Yes.
> • Can the appearance of the GUI be changed to suit the user? In other words
> does it have an option to get rid of that gawd-awful flat black livery.
> Hopefully.
>
> Cosmetic changes are a waste of time.

I think, by now we have established that developers don't do visuals.
So waste of whose time, Rick?

Alex
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Maurizio Paglia]

In data venerdì 20 ottobre 2017 19:28:03 CEST, Alexandre Prokoudine ha 
scritto:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:
> > Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of
> > my life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is.
> > Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.
> > 
> > Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I
> > meet
> > someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on
> > the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”
> > 
> > So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time
> > thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete,
> > utter waste of their time.
> 
> Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree.
> 
> First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can
> be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was
> entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with
> few exceptions).
> 
> Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who
> lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough
> place to discuss this to _me_.
> 
> > Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and
> > works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad
> > campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and
> > anyone who looks past the exterior knows it.
> 
> uncapable software + bad visuals = no go
> 
> uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long
> 
> capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users
> 
> capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned
> 
> What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be
> ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag
> about, no?
> 
> The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in
> upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly
> sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion.
> 
> Alex
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Thank you all guys, now the discussion starts to be very interesting.

My first idea (but it is better to call it 'proposal') was absolutely not 
intended to kill GIMP in any way!
I simply think GIMP has something we could change in order to make it more 
appealing.

(@ Ross - I agree with you about beauty but - here - I am speaking about to be 
more appealing, more sexy, not more beautiful.
A beauty software is not useful, a 'nice to see' software will attract more 
users).

I means if we carry on some good maquillage we can help GIMP to reach new 
users, more users means (hopefully) more brainstorming and partecipation and, 
why not, more developer.
GIMP 2.8 was released in 2012: now we are at the end of 2017 and we still do 
not know when GIMP 2.10 will be released.
In software play 5 years are not a long time: this is an era!
If you are a GIMP enthusiast you think 'developer are doing a very hard work 
in order to introduce GEGL, port software to a newer Gtk version, etc. etc.'
If you are a normal user you think 'GIMP is dead'.

To have more users you need more releases, to have more releases you [also] 
need more developers, more ideas, more brainstorming users.
The easiest way to have more users is an attractive look, a little more 
marketing (marketing or propaganda are not evil!) and I think GIMP can [have 
to] improve also on the look side.

You all love Wilber? OK, keep it but think to a more modern/stylized Wilber to 
be used as icon.
Google for 'Wilbur' and you see dozens of different images (for this reason I 
think Wilbur is a mascot and not a logo), now Google for 'NIKE'.
This is a logo: easy to remember, drawable in any size/colour.

I am not asking the developers to carry on this task, they have to invest 
their time in coding and make GIMP more and more valid.
I am asking instead to the many enthusiast of GIMP that (I suppose) have more 
graphic capabilities than developers.
 
Will GIMP 2.10 be a great step ahead?
Tell it to the whole world!

Thank you,
Maurizio
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Steve Kinney]

On 10/20/2017 11:41 AM, Ross Martinek wrote:

> As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love the 
> sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in 
> “Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too wealthy 
> to call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s a play on 
> the iconic “starving artist.")
> 
> Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create 
> something beautiful.

Right on.  I'm glad to see that proposals for fidget changes, for the
sake of change itself, don't seem to get much traction here.  As a long
time student of propaganda and marketing (same thing) I would consider
dumping Wilbur and anonymizing the GIMP logo as brand suicide moves.

Off topic for the thread:  The GIMP splash screen includes a progress
indicator showing the GIMP scanning all its optional/variable parts to
build its menus and stuff every time it is started.  On older, slower
hardware that takes a lng time.

I would like to see an option to toggle that process off and on, by
saving the configuration data on exit, and reloading it when/as a "fast
start" mode was enabled by the user.

As a possible default solution, a faster scanning process that only
looks for changes in relevant directories could trigger a "real scan and
reload" of all the variable parts, only where and as a change (new,
missing or different sized files in any relevant directory) is detected
by comparison of file names and sizes.

In the event of abnormal termination a flag indicating failure to shut
down in an orderly manner - some dinky file that gets written at the end
of successful program start, and deleted after writing out the
configuration files during shutdown - could trigger a full rescan if
present on start.  This same process could be invoked by the user though
a "reload all plugins and resources" command, which would restart the
GIMP without setting the flag indicating a successful last shutdown.

Has this been discussed before (I bet it has) and if so where should I look?

Over the years I have spent a lot of time looking at GIMP splash screens
when I could have been loading up image files and tweaking on them.  The
process that causes that does make perfect sense, but IMO so would some
attention to shortening it when and as practicable.

:o)


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Ross Martinek]

Alex,

I did apologize in advance for acerbidity (not a word ;^} ) And it’s just my 
strongly stated opinion. To me, anything that performs its function as well as 
the operator’s ability allows is a thing of beauty, regardless of what it looks 
like. (No, I’m not an engineer. =^D )

I like your attitude. As long as this is the way the developers see things, I 
see no problem.

It’s just that I have too much experience re-engineering (or back-engineering) 
things that were well designed, then ruined by the accountants and ad 
departments. I can’t do this with electronics or software—hence my 
apprehension. I’ve seen too many good things ruined by making them look “sexy,” 
or whatever, or by making them less functional for profit’s sake. At least the 
latter is not likely to be a problem here.

But I don’t think you can argue that our society pays far too much attention to 
appearance at the cost of substance. So being an old curmudgeon, when I see 
someone advocating improved appearance, it’s going to get a reaction—strongly 
stated, but civil, I hope. (I try not to make global warming any worse, but 
there are occasional episodes of localized, total atmospheric ionization …)

So a suggestion: Why not ask the users, or at least members of this list, 
rather than the developers, to produce the cosmetic enhancements. The users are 
artists of one sort or another. Here’s an opportunity to use their skills and 
talents to give back for some great, free software.

Ross


> On Oct 20, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:
>> Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my
>> life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is.
>> Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.
>> 
>> Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet
>> someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on
>> the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”
>> 
>> So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time
>> thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete,
>> utter waste of their time.
> 
> Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree.
> 
> First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can
> be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was
> entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with
> few exceptions).
> 
> Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who
> lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough
> place to discuss this to _me_.
> 
>> Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and
>> works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad
>> campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone
>> who looks past the exterior knows it.
> 
> uncapable software + bad visuals = no go
> 
> uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long
> 
> capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users
> 
> capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned
> 
> What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be
> ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag
> about, no?
> 
> The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in
> upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly
> sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion.
> 
> Alex
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:
> Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my
> life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is.
> Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.
>
> Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet
> someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on
> the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”
>
> So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time
> thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete,
> utter waste of their time.

Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree.

First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can
be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was
entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with
few exceptions).

Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who
lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough
place to discuss this to _me_.

> Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and
> works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad
> campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone
> who looks past the exterior knows it.

uncapable software + bad visuals = no go

uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long

capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users

capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned

What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be
ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag
about, no?

The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in
upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly
sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion.

Alex
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Maurizio Paglia]

In data venerdì 20 ottobre 2017 17:41:06 CEST, Ross Martinek ha scritto:
> Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my
> life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is.
> Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.
> 
> Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet
> someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on
> the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”
> 
> So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time
> thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete,
> utter waste of their time.
> 
> Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and
> works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad
> campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and
> anyone who looks past the exterior knows it.
> 
> GIMP is a tool that can be used to create artistic beauty, which is the only
> place appearance is important.
> 
> Put simply, I don’t care if the tool is uglier than mortal sin if it does
> the job well. Form follows function—about a light year behind.
> 
> As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love
> the sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in
> “Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too
> wealthy to call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s
> a play on the iconic “starving artist.")
> 
> Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create
> something beautiful.
> 
> Ross
> 
> > On Oct 20, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Maurizio Paglia  wrote:
> > 
> > Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply!
> > 
> > 2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine <
> > 
> > alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>:
> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:
> >>> 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon
> >>> containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern,
> >> 
> >> identifiable,
> >> 
> >>> and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.
> >> 
> >> You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G'
> >> letter to make it more identifiable?
> > 
> > Wilber is not a logo.
> > A logo is unique and do not change.
> > Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat,
> > etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot.
> > I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written
> > in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the
> > launcher).
> > 
> >>> 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive
> >> 
> >> for
> >> 
> >>> a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think
> >>> GIMP
> >>> needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep
> >> 
> >> away
> >> 
> >>> Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.
> >> 
> >> You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development
> >> versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash
> >> screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for
> >> yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.
> > 
> > Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-(
> > But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon
> > 
> >>> 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages
> >>> windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.
> >>> 
> >>> Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else.
> >>> Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is
> >>> always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and
> >>> minimal icons are used instead.
> >>> 
> >>> What do you think about this dress change?
> >> 
> >> Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)
> > 
> > Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment.
> > Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss?
> > I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people.
> > Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software.
> > In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'.
> > Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but
> > GIMP needs a new logo.
> > 
> >> Alex
> >> ___
> >> gimp-user-list mailing list
> >> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> >> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> >> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
> > 
> > ___
> > gimp-user-list mailing list
> > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> > List archives:   

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Ross Martinek]

Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my 
life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. 
Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.

Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet 
someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on the 
inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”

So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time 
thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, utter 
waste of their time.

Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and 
works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad 
campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone 
who looks past the exterior knows it.

GIMP is a tool that can be used to create artistic beauty, which is the only 
place appearance is important.

Put simply, I don’t care if the tool is uglier than mortal sin if it does the 
job well. Form follows function—about a light year behind. 

As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love the 
sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in 
“Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too wealthy to 
call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s a play on the 
iconic “starving artist.")

Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create 
something beautiful.

Ross


> On Oct 20, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Maurizio Paglia  wrote:
> 
> Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply!
> 
> 2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine <
> alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>:
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:
>> 
>>> 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon
>>> containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern,
>> identifiable,
>>> and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.
>> 
>> You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G'
>> letter to make it more identifiable?
>> 
> 
> Wilber is not a logo.
> A logo is unique and do not change.
> Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat,
> etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot.
> I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written
> in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the
> launcher).
> 
>> 
>>> 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive
>> for
>>> a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP
>>> needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep
>> away
>>> Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.
>> 
>> You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development
>> versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash
>> screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for
>> yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.
>> 
> 
> Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-(
> But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon
> 
>> 
>>> 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages
>>> windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.
>>> 
>>> Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else.
>>> Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is
>>> always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and
>>> minimal icons are used instead.
>>> 
>>> What do you think about this dress change?
>> 
>> Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)
>> 
> 
> Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment.
> Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss?
> I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people.
> Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software.
> In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'.
> Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but
> GIMP needs a new logo.
> 
>> 
>> Alex
>> ___
>> gimp-user-list mailing list
>> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
>> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
>> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
>> 
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Pat David]

Hello!

There's a couple of things at work here, I think.

Wilber has served double duty as both a mascot _and_ a logo for a very,
very long time.  There's a long history of association of the image of
Wilber with the project.  It provides the benefit of being both unique, and
instantly recognizable to anyone that's used GIMP before.

I understand the desire for something "modern" ("minimal" or not, though I
understand that it's the flavor du jour at the moment), but I'm not sure if
the path to a single letter or something similar is in the best interests
of the project.

For one, if I'm looking at a launcher of icons and I see a single "G"
there, my brain currently would associate it with Google first, not GIMP.
The branding for that letter has previously been well established by a
large player  in the computer industry.  Changing the GIMP icon to
something similar would only serve to water down it's meaning and possibly
confuse users more, imo.  This is partially what Alex is referring to with
his "identity loss, followed by existential crisis" I think.

The branding is strong with Wilber at the moment, and I can not find a good
reason to reconsider it, personally.  I'm happy to entertain reasons
otherwise, though.

We are actually discussing splash screen stuff right now in the IRC room.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:08 AM Maurizio Paglia  wrote:

> Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply!
>
> 2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine <
> alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:
> >
> > > 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon
> > > containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern,
> > identifiable,
> > > and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.
> >
> > You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G'
> > letter to make it more identifiable?
> >
>
> Wilber is not a logo.
> A logo is unique and do not change.
> Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat,
> etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot.
> I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written
> in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the
> launcher).
>
> >
> > > 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive
> > for
> > > a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think
> GIMP
> > > needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep
> > away
> > > Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.
> >
> > You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development
> > versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash
> > screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for
> > yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.
> >
>
> Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-(
> But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon
>
> >
> > > 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages
> > > windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.
> > >
> > > Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else.
> > > Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is
> > > always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear
> and
> > > minimal icons are used instead.
> > >
> > > What do you think about this dress change?
> >
> > Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)
> >
>
> Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment.
> Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss?
> I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people.
> Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software.
> In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'.
> Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but
> GIMP needs a new logo.
>
> >
> > Alex
> > ___
> > gimp-user-list mailing list
> > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> > List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
> >
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
>
-- 
https://patdavid.net
GPG: 66D1 7CA6 8088 4874 946D  18BD 67C7 6219 89E9 57AC
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Maurizio Paglia]

Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply!

2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:
>
> > 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon
> > containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern,
> identifiable,
> > and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.
>
> You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G'
> letter to make it more identifiable?
>

Wilber is not a logo.
A logo is unique and do not change.
Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat,
etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot.
I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written
in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the
launcher).

>
> > 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive
> for
> > a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP
> > needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep
> away
> > Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.
>
> You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development
> versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash
> screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for
> yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.
>

Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-(
But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon

>
> > 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages
> > windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.
> >
> > Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else.
> > Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is
> > always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and
> > minimal icons are used instead.
> >
> > What do you think about this dress change?
>
> Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)
>

Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment.
Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss?
I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people.
Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software.
In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'.
Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but
GIMP needs a new logo.

>
> Alex
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
>
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:

> 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon
> containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern, identifiable,
> and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.

You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G'
letter to make it more identifiable?

> 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive for
> a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP
> needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep away
> Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.

You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development
versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash
screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for
yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.

> 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages
> windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.
>
> Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else.
> Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is
> always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and
> minimal icons are used instead.
>
> What do you think about this dress change?

Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)

Alex
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list