On Fri, May 22, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Ross Gammon wrote: > On 05/22/2015 09:43 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > >> Concidering the changes in the menu... are we also considering putting > >> photography into the graphics meta? In other words are we going to align > >> metas/workfows with menu or just let the menu be what works and do > >> workflows differently? > >> > >> -- > > > > Good question. > > IMO at least publishing may just as well be under graphics. > > Any reason to why photography shouldn't? > > > > Or avoiding the question of whether photography is graphics or not :-) > > Assuming all metapackages are installed with a fresh install, it would > only be people adding metapackages to a standard desktop Ubuntu flavour, > or removing metapackages (to remove a particular package) that would > suddenly wonder why things are in different metapackages than expected, > or popping up in unexpected parts of the menu. > > Small problem? To me it is more important that the menu is intuitive. > > Cheers, >
We could go even further, and add a bunch of new meta packages for the sub-categories we are working on. So, if we decide to go with only three main categories - audio, video and graphics, we can have pretty much one meta for each sub-category. I think this would make it easier for people to find certain software too using Ubuntu Software Center, or our own installer. Photography would still be its own meta - additionally new metas would appear, such as 3D graphics, 2D graphics, etc. For audio/video players, it might be enough to just have ubuntustudio-media-players. It would also mean we can fine tune each "workflow"/category, so that we make sure we really have the best possible tools and utilities for each area of multimedia production. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
