[ubuntu-art] Quick Update

[Kenneth Wimer]

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