[ubuntu-art] Deadline for community art: May 15

[Billy]

> �tienne Bersac <bersace03 at laposte.net> wrote:
> 
>         Hello,
>         
>         
>         > -Tango was supposed to mix with Human, not the other way
>         around
>         
>         Tangerine is a tangoish Human theme that blend very well with
>         other 
>         Tango icons.


Well, I don't know what happen there but aren't all three are supposed
to follow the same guidelines and palette? Can't imagine otherwise.


>         > While it's best that icons have text labels (gnome/hicolor
>         ignore 
>         > gnomeHIG that says otherwise) small icons should not. Tell
>         me, can 
>         > you distiguish the 24x24 and below icons in tangerine of the
>         same 
>         > name you caomplain in Human? No, you can not.
>         
>         See :
>         http://bersace03.free.fr/pub/captures/dapper-artwork/compare- 
>         human-tangerine.png . 16x16 tangerine icons are very clean
>         and 
>         readable while Human are juste unreadable (see home, desktop,
>         disk, 
>         ssh and ftp).


I agree the fonts are very bad but you can't say Tangerine is very clean
and readable (there's nothing to read!). It's one and the same icon for
three types and that is not useable. So while the font needs to be
cleaned up in Human at least its there, and is somewhat useable. Not
true for Tangerine.


>         Even big icons are cleaner : see the network icon ("R�seau
>         Windows").


I see 2 diff icons that are very similar. Nothing is clean or dirty
about either. If anything the Tangerine is too small.


>         > In fact, some are much better in Human (not ones with text).
>         Small 
>         > icons require tasteful experience to make. They can't just
>         be 
>         > exported then shadow added, they have to be completely
>         redone to be 
>         > effective. That takes a lot of time when free of charge.
>         
>         See the 24x24/status/mouse-power-low.png ,
>         24x24/places/desktop.png , 
>         24x24/places/gnome-fs-network.png , 24x24/places/gnome-fs- 
>         server.png , etc. These icons are problematic. Other icons
>         aren't 
>         consistent with Tango.


I don't see any inconsistencies but I do see blurry icons. Tango doesn't
have this problem at small sizes because it doesn't use shadows at small
sizes. I agree that if it is not done right, that is the best route to
take. However a lot of the small Human icons look good so, picking out a
few means nothing when it is a WIP.


>         > To avoid conflict, Human was wise enough to let Tango be its
>         base.
>         
>         Obviously Tangerine is based on Tango, not Human. Tangerine
>         use 
>         consistent color according to Tango specs. Human just herits
>         icons 
>         from Tangerine which herits from Tango. Tangerine is a
>         tangoification 
>         of Human which is mean to be mixed with Tango.


Not true. They were to be Humanified Tango. You got it backwards. Human
inherits first from Tangerine and then from Tango. Human looks fine with
Tango, so perhaps your issue is that Human inherits from Tangerine and
shouldn't. I could live with that.


>         > Overall I like the Human icons and it's probably because of
>         the 
>         > shadows.
>         
>         Human shadow for directory is better than Tangerine one. But
>         than far 
>         less important than readability and overall consistency.


Hunam shadows everywhere are better than Tango and Tangerine, but that
is because they are png. As an themer, I care more about realistic
shadows than a minor consistency issue that is bound to change over
time. If I can't enjoy my desktop....if I don't feel the icon is a
realistic interpretation of what it represents, I won't notice the color
inconcententcies because I won't be using the icon theme!


>         Definitively, Tangerine is far better than Human, just because
>         its 
>         goal is to improve Human.
>         
>         �tienne.


People make things all the time to improve someone elses work. That
doesn't make it so. You can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. There are
definitives in icon graphics. The most important is to be realistic,
whether that be a cartoonish (or whatever) feel doesn't matter. What
matters is that we feel like we are looking at what the artist wanted us
to. So how does a square folder or a square piece of paper look like
such, with a round thing protruding out from under it? Ever see that
before? Is your shadow a flat line? Wouldn't you be alarmed if it was?
That's what these svg 'shadows' (dots...circles) do. Alarm the user and
make them take a double take as to what they are looking at. So, minor
color diff is null at this point.

Billy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/attachments/20060508/b5ee58f3/attachment-0001.htm