[ubuntu-art] On the day it reverted...

[Toby Smithe]

You explained this very well, and I think I've got over the original
shock, and understand the decision.

On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 20:28 -0700, Troy James Sobotka wrote:
> As someone who just got home to a plethora of email
> in my incoming box and my mailing list box, I think 
> I should at least offer my vantage on this whole
> process and outcome.  I designed those bits that were
> in Edgy.  For what it is worth, I will attempt to address
> the issues I have read thus far.
> 
> On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 17:46 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > Reverting to Dapper would not be a great outcome - but it would be
> > preferable to shipping with artwork that does not meet our standards.
> > We've invested a huge amount of time and effort in the Edgy art
> > community process, and thus far we don't have a final set of images
> > that IMO cut the mustard. 
> 
> Ultimately, the "our standards" should be more spoken
> as sab's.  We knew this going in, and we know it going
> out.
> 
> With artwork, you can _never_ please everyone.  In fact,
> it is much like politics -- you hope for a rough percentage
> and run with the ball on it.  Ultimately, Ubuntu is different
> from politics.  There is _one_ person who needs to be 
> happy, and that is sabdfl.  Whether you like it or not,
> he wasn't, and the _only_ choice left was to revert as
> he did not find any of the work up to his standards.
> 
> The following hopefully explains this in full, from the
> vantage of someone who participated from the onset.
> 
> First, I became active in this because of the clear 
> and problematic design issues present in Ubuntu,
> namely:
>  1) Lack of a cohesive palette, motif, design keyword
>     communication.  Compare the GDM to the logon splash
>     to the wallpaper and hopefully this is clear.  If
>     it isn't, perhaps someone could explain better than
>     myself.
>  2) Lack of consistency as a byproduct of number
>     one above.
> 
> To draw an analogy, it was much like having several
> discreet pieces of clothing that all would work fine
> alone, but when put together failed to offer any
> sort of cohesion.
> 
> At the beginning of the process, there was an attempt
> to lay out a formal design pattern -- moulded after
> a pretty standard "target" "brainstorm" "create" "refine"
> "implement" pattern.  It was located here:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtworkPlan/
> 
> The whole point of the entire process was to have
> clear and visible checkpoints for 'client' interaction
> and steering -- gradually diminishing options and
> working towards a directed goal.
> 
> Unfortunately, _all_ of the checkpoints were rather
> underutilized.  This was probably the byproduct of
> sab's massively busy schedule.  He is a pretty busy
> guy with this tidal wave called Ubuntu...
> 
> This left Frank Schoep, our Artist in Chief, on his own
> to do the filtering and refining.  He did a _truly_ 
> amazing job trying to juggle all of the development
> issues and artwork aspects, and, despite the outcome,
> has proved himself a very valuable asset to the 
> Ubuntu project, imho.  
> 
> Certain looser design criteria were made clear 
> (read the specifications for further information), 
> and development proceeded as best as possible given 
> the instructions.
> 
> Unfortunately, there was zero result to develop
> a palette from the "ponder / brainstorm."  There
> were zero motifs granted.  Etc.  This led to a very
> difficult design phase.  Frank had to hobble along.
> 
> Jump to freeze times.  Perhaps because artwork has not
> been treated in a development fashion before, when the time
> came to freeze elements, Frank had to use his judgement
> and rolled with what he felt were the best options
> laid out before him.  Enter the newer Edgy work.
> 
> Bear in mind that at this point, Ubuntu is NOT like the 
> other *buntu's.  Ubuntu is under STRICT watch by sab 
> himself -- and hopefully we can all appreciate that.
> Ubuntu's success thus far has probably largely been
> because of his vision.
> 
> What became clearer fact was what the goal of the 
> effort was.  Fundamentally, there should have been
> more mimesis on the part of the team, as opposed to
> believing that there was room for design beyond the
> 6.06 work.  If you follow the current product of the
> conference calling between himself and a few others,
> you will quickly see what his ideas for change were.
> 
> Unfortunately, we failed to locate these changes at 
> the onset.
> 
> On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 19:12 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > If you read that document (have you?) you'll see that the art team
> > leads explicitly set their own, personalised deadlines that are in
> > sync with those of the distro. It's not /the same/ it's an appropriate
> > set of deadlines that were a good plan - and it was not followed.
> 
> Actually, the deadlines were set in direct accordance with
> the schedule released at Paris.  It would have been foolish
> to _not_ do this.  In addition to this, the freeze dates
> have been relatively clear all along.  I don't think fundamentally
> this had _anything_ to do with the outcome.
> 
> On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 18:53 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > No - unprofessional is missing all the agreed dates, and not pulling
> > together as a team but instead having too many people pulling in too
> > many directions.
> > 
> > Before you react - consider for a moment that the REST of the
> > distribution does not run that way. It could never be the tight,
> > focused thing that it is if it did. It's up to the art team to rise to
> > the level of the rest of the distro, not simply to assume that release
> > management processes apply less strictly in the artwork department.
> 
> Not quite.  The fundamental issue at hand
> was a distinct lack of _concrete_ direction that were met
> in accordance with the above schedule checkpoints.  Perhaps 
> there was a view that 'quashing' a given direction would have
> disappointed the community, but in essence, it was exactly
> what the design plan was developed to provide.
> 
> I have attached the byproduct of countless hours of last minute
> tweaks and changes based on his personal guidance for those 
> that missed the links / images.
> 
> On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 19:12 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > But design is about visual and spatial engineering - creating things
> > that are both beautiful and functional. We CAN expect design to be a
> > disciplined professional process.
> 
> Reverting to Dapper's work solves this.  It is both beautiful
> and functional.  Again, we must accept that ultimately the
> definitions of "beautiful and functional" are defined by 
> Mr. Shuttleworth's aesthetic.  He has provided his own
> money to develop Ubuntu.  He has dedicated a huge amount
> of time to make Ubuntu what it is.  He is why we are even
> discussing this.  
> 
> Dapper is excellence in design for him.  He has spent
> his own money and time developing it.  Please appreciate
> that.
> 
> It has been a wonderful journey...
> 
> Sincerely,
> TJS
> 
> PS:  The design that ended up being in there has
> very little to do with my personal aesthetic.  I 
> simply tried to take what I believed Ubuntu was
> based on its connotations, existing loose brown
> tone, and guesswork to devise _something_ that
> felt Ubuntu.  Again, without a clear design specification,
> colour palette, etc., it was all guesswork.
> Aesthetics aside, the design attempted to meet
> the loose specifications from the onset _and_
> correct some of the issues that I _personally_
> thought were present in Ubuntu's look.
> 
> For all of the countless requests I have in my 
> inbox, you can locate the most updated versions
> of the effort at the _bottom_ of the page.  They
> are slightly different from what was in Edgy, but
> alas, we know the history:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtworkPlan/Produce/Incoming/CurrentDefault
> 
> 
>