__/ [Andreas Nilsson] on Thursday 16 February 2006 11:26 \__
> Thomas Wood wrote:
>
>> Rodney Dawes wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 20:14 +0000, Thomas Wood wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I'd like to see GNOME have it's own distinctive style,
>>>> but I can't see how we could achieve this if we are adopting tango's
>>>> style.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you here, like others often do, are missing the point of the
>>> style guidelines entirely. Look at gnome-icon-theme HEAD, and compare
>>> it to Tango. You'll see the icons are all pretty much still different,
>>> but they don't have horribly conflicting styles.
>>
>>
>> But presumably they no longer conform to the style guidelines in the
>> hig? I know the hig is only a guideline, but presumably we need to
>> make sure the icon theme and the default theme aren't starting to move
>> apart in terms of colours e.t.c.
>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I would much rather avoid maintaining multiple icon themes
>>> with different licensing schemes. And I'm sure that the artists would
>>> also like to avoid maintaining them, for the licensing reasons, as well
>>> as having to maintaing multiple versions of the same icon for different
>>> themes.
>>
>>
>> If it's a licensing issue, then that makes a little more sense. The
>> GNOME icon theme definitely needs to stay GPL until the issues about
>> Creative Commons et al are resolved.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we should just push to supplant gnome-icon-theme with the
>>> Tango theme. At least, not yet. Keeping gnome-icon-theme around is a
>>> good point to tilt gnome in the direction of the naming spec, and get
>>> the applications migrated. Maybe if we're migrated well enough that we
>>> can get rid of the need for symlinks, by say, 2.16, we can perhaps then
>>> propose to just use the Tango theme for 2.18. I imagine there are still
>>> licensing issues involved though. People do not seem to be taking well
>>> to the fact that the Tango theme is CC-By-SA.
>>
>>
>> I would actually be in favour of keeping the GNOME icon theme (and
>> most definitely in its simplified form). Licensing is going to be one
>> issue, but I think it doesn't actually help tango if it became the
>> default theme/style in GNOME (e.g. "I'm not using it, it's a GNOME
>> project!").
>>
>> I also think it would be helpful if GNOME could retain some of it's
>> distinctive style. We're already going to be looking into making sure
>> the default theme stays within the current hig guidelines, so it would
>> be nice if the icon theme would too (i.e. using current hig colours).
>
> Hello Thomas!
> I think I'll have to disagree on this one. Icons are primary interface
> elements, and using them to push a distinctive visual style as a mean to
> brand your product causes more problems than goods. Having a distinctive
> style of the icons are really secondary, as you can push your brand into
> splashscreens, backgrounds, and gdm-screens and whatever you like. I
> think it is more important to not have a mishmash of styles that creates
> a unprofessional look.
Choice is not a negative thing. Being too uniform leads to a monoculture and
thus unhappy users.
> If a app-author wants to have a icon for his app, what style will it
> have? Gnome, Tango, Crystal, Bluecurve? OSX and Windows kick our asses
> in this area soo hard. A ISV doing a app for osx knows exactly what
> style their icon designer should draw in. In Linux (and BSD, Solaris
> etc.) they have no idea and to some random stuff instead to not offence
> any of the two big desktops.
> I think it would be neat if the gnome-palette could be replaced by the
> tango-palette in the hig. Lots of apps have already started to use the
> tango-palette and icon-guidelines (and more are coming).
Consistency has its advantages, but most *nix user would love to abstain from
inheriting the conventions of a particular O/S. In GNOME, I still enjoy a
hybrid of styles. I am not alone in this.
Roy
|
|
