Hi,
On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote:
On Jun 25, 2006, at 8:25 PM, Kenneth Wimer wrote:
On Jun 25, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote:
On Jun 25, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Troy James Sobotka wrote:
This will require some new language.
Basically, Human icons are in and staying -- as per sabdfl.
This will be a component of the 'Human Look', which is what
we are sticking with (albeit trying to finish it, polish it,
and finish the set.)
I don't understand why it is so pertinently important to keep
Human in. In all objectivity, it's simply a suboptimal icon set
when compared to Tango. I also don't see why any of the arguments
that I have given have to be ignored. Like I stated, Human
doesn't seem to follow any proper guidelines at all. If it does,
then I would like to read their rationale for arbitrarily
designing some icons from different angles.
I see it as a good decision for branding the gnome desktop for an
Ubuntu product. I do not think you are being ignored but rather
that your opinion differs from others, especially those who make
the decisions for artwork inclusion in the aforementioned product.
Note as well that in artwork, guidelines are great, but for every
rule there is an exception.
I don't think it's just my opinion that differs. As I've mentioned
before, I've got valid criticism for the Human icon set. I simply
believe it to be inferior to Tangerine/Tango for various reasons.
Generally, I feel as though this same opinion exists among more
members of the art community.
Until now, this opinion is not exactly a consensus. As noted
previously in other mails, some of these decisions are not up to us
as a democratic entity.
I also don't see why you simply say "guidelines are great, but we
make exceptions".
Note that I did not say that "we make exceptions" but rather that all
rules have exceptions in the real world.
I don't see why you can just admit that some of the icons in the
Human set are inconsistent.
I have not denied this fact, but simply tried to explain why it is
so. There is also a valid reason to brand a project so that it stands
out as an individual within the greater group of related projects.
To me, it sounds like you're just saying "it's been decided, you
don't have any say in it, let's smother this discussion". I
disagree with such an attitude.
I am saying that "it has been decided, we all stated our opinions and
sometimes not everyone can be pleased. I also added that if you are
interesed in this, please feel free to work on it in a group with
those who share your opinion, just do not expect everyone to share
your opinion. Sometimes artwork in the real world is like that
Don't get me wrong, though. I don't think that the Human icon set
is bad by any standard, but I simply feel that a more open process
would enable us to get rid of such things. It's imperative that
inconsistency is taken care of in any case. This doesn't take away
that most of the icons in the system should just come from
Tangerine/Tango, as the Tango icon set is likely to be the style of
icons for _all_ default application icons in the future. It will
most definitely become very popular, and I don't think it is a good
idea for Ubuntu to say no to that style because "we want it to be a
little different".
It is not a case of wanting it to be a little different, but rather
to make it look distinctively Ubuntu and beautiful.
Seeing as the decision has already been made I suggest you produce
a viable alternative by working in a group with other like-minded
individuals - if the result is seen as better in everyones eyes
than what exists now we can perhaps change this decision in future
releases.
I don't see why. The Tangerine/Tango set already exists, is more
complete, has more people working on it, has a more open design
process, also makes Ubuntu ready for the future concerning design
consistency. Just because some people felt it was necessary to say
no to it for Dapper doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible to re-
evaluate it for Edgy.
The cycle for edgy is well underway, and due to the later release of
Dapper a few months shorter than expected. This fact alone is enough
for one to come to the opinion that we should fix what is there
rather than start with a whole new set of problems (which we first
have to discover, document, etc. before we can even fix them).
Bye,
Kenneth
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
