[ubuntu-art] Human iconset is incomplete and inconsistent

Ravi Shanker ra21vi at gmail.com
Sun May 13 15:42:35 BST 2007

Whatever one says or gives opinion is just personal. You can't say
anything without your personal analysis and thoughts. Its what human
thinks and express. Everything is personal friend. You can't go
universal saying anything.
"His personal opinion is this" means a person didn't like or found
something not so appealing. It means there is something wrong and should
be worked out.

I too have discussed over this issue, that most of the icons are not
sharp and have better contrast with the background. MacOSX plays with
such things and is known to be best. One thing is sure, if the icon is
good combination of color, design, contrast, and perspective, it looks
good to everyone.
Tango icons are good, but most of the icon are not too sharp.
And overall, tango icon looks great than this monotonic orange color
ubuntu Human icon theme. Everything is orange. Desktop becomes too much
orange. Also, he is right, the icon set is not complete.

On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 15:16 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
> Hi
> Not that you don't make any valid points, but this email is full of
> personal opinions. Personally, I think that the Tango theme
> looks /horrible/, in particular the file browser, volume control, logout
> and network manager icons. The Human theme is really much nicer to me.
> However, I completely agree that the attitude to mix Human and Tango
> does not work - they are very different looks.
> Unfortunately, there is no Human style guidelines, so nobody can create
> their own Human icons properly. I think part of the problem is that
> Human is an IconFactory production. Our own efforts to develop the set
> have already resulted in inconsistency. (Right click your desktop and
> see the difference between the star emblem in the Create Folder and
> Create Document icons.)
> Either we come up with new style guidelines to "rival" Tango, or we
> retroactively develop them for Human and start making it all better.
>  .On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 12:31 +0200, Alexander van Loon wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > I see this has already been raised before -
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/2007-February/003795.html -
> > but I'd like to ask some more questions.
> > 
> > So far the Human iconset is not complete, so it is mixed with icons from
> > the GNOME/Tango/Tangerine iconsets which adhere to the Tango icon theme
> > guidelines - http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Theme_Guidelines -
> > while the Human iconset does not adhere to these guidelines. This means
> > that there is no consistency between the different iconsets, and I think
> > that there is no consistency between the icons inside the Human iconset
> > either.
> > 
> > As was already said before, creating a good and complete iconset takes a
> > long time. Because the Human icons still aren't completed, why even
> > bother? Isn't the Tangerine iconset, which is a modification of the
> > Tango iconset with some "Ubuntufication" like more orange colors, enough
> > to create a different identity/branding for Ubuntu? Tangerine already
> > builds on the far more complete Tango icon set and it's guidelines which
> > has more drive behind it than the Human iconset.
> > 
> > Besides that, is there anyone who prefers the Human iconset over
> > Tangerine? The Human icons don't look professional at all, it looks
> > blurry and ugly. From what I understand from previous posts on the
> > mailing list, the only reason the Human iconset was created because
> > sabdfl/Mark Shuttleworth likes them.
> > 
> > Of course Mark Shuttleworth is Ubuntu's founder, it's his distro so he
> > decides, and I don't want to say that he has a bad taste. But I'd like
> > to ask Mark Shuttleworth to reconsider the choice of the default
> > iconset. Not based on my personal opinion of how I don't like the Human
> > iconset, but based on the argument of inconsistency, the greater support
> > for the Tango icon theme guidelines, and the greater completeness of the
> > Tango/GNOME iconsets.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I also have some suggestions concerning the default GTK theme of Ubuntu.
> > I like all the orange and such, I like the Metaciy theme, but the GTK
> > theme has a rather boring gray color.
> > 
> > Possibly, could some brighter sort of grey color be used? Or possibly a
> > more beige/brown color, like in the Gilouche theme -
> > http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=46881 - or a more
> > "Ubuntutified" light orange color -
> > http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=44030 - like in this
> > theme? I think that especially the Gilouche theme (which is used by
> > Novell's distro's) is a lot more attractive than the plain, boring, dull
> > gray while it still looks formal. Why stick with the current color of
> > grey used in the default GTK theme?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Last question, why is the Ubuntulooks engine still used? According to
> > the website of the Murrine theme engine -
> > http://cimi.netsons.org/pages/murrine.php - "The Engine is cairo-based,
> > and it's very fast compared to clearlooks-cairo and ubuntulooks (30%
> > faster and more), since I have tried to optimize the code and removed a
> > lot of slow gradients to provide this unique style". Given it's extra
> > features and speed advantage, why not use this theme engine instead of
> > Ubuntulooks?
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Alexander van Loon
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Alex Jones
> http://alex.weej.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/attachments/20070513/5bf6d872/attachment.pgp 

More information about the ubuntu-art mailing list