Hi folks! I think one of the problems creating a theme like Kens mockup could be, that (AFAIK) there is no gtk-engine supporting things like rounded corners for menus, because the only transparency we can get there comes from compiz/beryl/xcompmgr. I think we would need to hack an engine...
cheers Sebastian Billaudelle Am Mittwoch, den 02.01.2008, 23:32 -0500 schrieb Ken Vermette: > I've tackled Emerald, I'll be honest and say "I suck" when it comes to > the live conversion, so it could probably be done better. I'll post > what I have done tomorrow the moment I get at my regular development > machine (traveling). I'll also make a variation with an opaque content > arera in case Cimis' GTK mod is a beast, and to help get things > rolling. We might need it anyway for low-end machines using Metacity. > > Should I post the Emerald theme I have in the Wiki? Or is there > anywhere you would prefer to keep the files? > > (Also, thank you! Been fighting this stuff tooth and nail, I'm still > very new to the theme formats) > > --Ken Vermette > > On Jan 2, 2008 11:07 PM, xl cheese < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm going to try to mimick Ken's mockups as close as I can > with a true gtk theme. If anyone here would like to help out > with it email and we can take it offline. I'll start using > the pixmap engine for things I can't get any current themes to > make then attempt to alter some other engines to do it and > replace the pixmap parts. > ________________________________ > > Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:52:09 -0500 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com > > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-art] Moving things forwards. > > > > "Ooh, what's that one?" > > > > OSX is long held as one of the boldest and most unique > designs in the industry, when Windows was just toying with XP > - Apple made the ultra-shiny, over-glossed look and threw in > every effect they could think of and paired it with a > pinstripe. If you look at OSX now, compared to when it was > first demonstrated, it has toned down dramatically; no > pinstripes, for example. > > > > That being said, I'm a firm believer in designs that are > both bold and unique. If it's unique, people will remember it. > If it's bold, people will talk about it. When you see a > desktop screen-shot of Vista, you know it's Vista. Vista is > bold, unique. When you see OSX, you can see the dock - the > signature - Unique to OSX. Apple has always been bold, and the > big "X" on the box shouts at you. "Ooh, what's that one?" > > > > If you want to make an argument for just being Unique - that > bold should be beyond our users, then I would be tempted to > present Amiga. There's an operating unique to itself, but > there's no oomph in the design. I've only ever -heard- of > these Amiga users, and I only hear that the Amiga users out > there are the ones unwilling to let it go. I doubt anyone will > walk by an Amiga in a store and be captured by it. It's > unique, and users of Amiga reminisce about it - but it's not > being talked about in anything other than fond memories. > > > > Linux users have posted pictures of Vista-clone desktops, or > OSX-like machines. You forget them, because it's not unique or > ever as polished as the original. Linux/Ubuntu is not Vista, > it's not OSX, it's not Amiga: Ubuntu needs to be Unique and > bold - Capturing - Ubuntu. Ubuntu can be that, and be > user-friendly at the same time. It doesn't need to be > jet-black to be bold, bold isn't a colour or a specific > design. It doesn't need to have patterns and pinstripes - it > needs to stand out; "Ooh, what's that one?" > > > > When 3 computers are lined up at computer store X - you > don't want Ubuntu to be passed. If it makes the stand, people > will notice it and be drawn to it for it's beauty - and stay > for the amazing operating system it is. You want whoever > passes that computer to say... > > > > "Ooh, what's that one?" > > > > On Jan 2, 2008 9:43 PM, Andrew Laignel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Who wrote: > >> How does a conventional 'vote for the one you like' allow > us to see this? > >> > > Maybe you could vote 1...5 on each entry then look at the > tally graphs > > for distribution? > >>> into love it/hate it camps which should be avoided at all > cost. Ideally > >>> a default theme should not be even noticed by the public - > being neutral > >>> and innofensive as possible should be the goal. A perfect > demonstration > >>> of this is Apple, where the current theme for OSX is > crips, clean, > >>> stylish and probably as neutral as you can get - no loud > colours, > >>> drastic layouts or hard edges. > >>> > >> > >> AFAIK, this has never been the aim for the Ubuntu default > theme - and > >> I don't think it ever will be. Sometimes going for love it > or hate it > >> beats going for bland. At least then people see it! > >> > >> As long as I can remember the Ubuntu Theme has been part of > the > >> branding, something that helps make Ubuntu known, something > for people > >> to talk about. From this point of view, it has worked very > well - if > >> you see a screenshot of linux and it is brown, you _know_ > it is ubuntu > >> - if you see a blue distro.... who knows... > > I'm not saying don't be brown, or to lose the Ubuntu theme, > but to avoid > > anything overly stylized. Most people using a computer will > never touch > > the default theme settings, and the less likely that a > sizable > > percentage will be sitting in front of something they hate > the better. > > If people want something really cool/different (ultra > dark/steampunk > > etc) then maybe there should be some alternate themes > shipped with it so > > if someone does have a look into the menus something is > there. > > > > Ulitmately if you really want a radical theme you can with > very little > > effort. The focus should be on giving the people who simply > don't care > > about the subject as pleasant an experience as possible, > rather than > > forcing them to change it because it's horrible (to them).
-- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
