[ubuntu-art] Stop kickin' the dead horse - Create a full Union GTK theme.
vermette at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 04:32:56 GMT 2008
I've tackled Emerald, I'll be honest and say "I suck" when it comes to the
live conversion, so it could probably be done better. I'll post what I have
done tomorrow the moment I get at my regular development machine
(traveling). I'll also make a variation with an opaque content arera in case
Cimis' GTK mod is a beast, and to help get things rolling. We might need it
anyway for low-end machines using Metacity.
Should I post the Emerald theme I have in the Wiki? Or is there anywhere you
would prefer to keep the files?
(Also, thank you! Been fighting this stuff tooth and nail, I'm still very
new to the theme formats)
On Jan 2, 2008 11:07 PM, xl cheese < xl_cheese at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm going to try to mimick Ken's mockups as close as I can with a true gtk
> theme. If anyone here would like to help out with it email and we can take
> it offline. I'll start using the pixmap engine for things I can't get any
> current themes to make then attempt to alter some other engines to do it and
> replace the pixmap parts.
> > Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:52:09 -0500
> > From: vermette at gmail.com
> > To: ubuntu-art at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-art] Moving things forwards.
> > "Ooh, what's that one?"
> > OSX is long held as one of the boldest and most unique designs in the
> industry, when Windows was just toying with XP - Apple made the ultra-shiny,
> over-glossed look and threw in every effect they could think of and paired
> it with a pinstripe. If you look at OSX now, compared to when it was first
> demonstrated, it has toned down dramatically; no pinstripes, for example.
> > That being said, I'm a firm believer in designs that are both bold and
> unique. If it's unique, people will remember it. If it's bold, people will
> talk about it. When you see a desktop screen-shot of Vista, you know it's
> Vista. Vista is bold, unique. When you see OSX, you can see the dock - the
> signature - Unique to OSX. Apple has always been bold, and the big "X" on
> the box shouts at you. "Ooh, what's that one?"
> > If you want to make an argument for just being Unique - that bold should
> be beyond our users, then I would be tempted to present Amiga. There's an
> operating unique to itself, but there's no oomph in the design. I've only
> ever -heard- of these Amiga users, and I only hear that the Amiga users out
> there are the ones unwilling to let it go. I doubt anyone will walk by an
> Amiga in a store and be captured by it. It's unique, and users of Amiga
> reminisce about it - but it's not being talked about in anything other than
> fond memories.
> > Linux users have posted pictures of Vista-clone desktops, or OSX-like
> machines. You forget them, because it's not unique or ever as polished as
> the original. Linux/Ubuntu is not Vista, it's not OSX, it's not Amiga:
> Ubuntu needs to be Unique and bold - Capturing - Ubuntu. Ubuntu can be that,
> and be user-friendly at the same time. It doesn't need to be jet-black to be
> bold, bold isn't a colour or a specific design. It doesn't need to have
> patterns and pinstripes - it needs to stand out; "Ooh, what's that one?"
> > When 3 computers are lined up at computer store X - you don't want
> Ubuntu to be passed. If it makes the stand, people will notice it and be
> drawn to it for it's beauty - and stay for the amazing operating system it
> is. You want whoever passes that computer to say...
> > "Ooh, what's that one?"
> > On Jan 2, 2008 9:43 PM, Andrew Laignel <a.laignel at ukdotcafe.com> wrote:
> > Who wrote:
> >> How does a conventional 'vote for the one you like' allow us to see
> > Maybe you could vote 1...5 on each entry then look at the tally graphs
> > for distribution?
> >>> into love it/hate it camps which should be avoided at all cost.
> >>> a default theme should not be even noticed by the public - being
> >>> and innofensive as possible should be the goal. A perfect
> >>> of this is Apple, where the current theme for OSX is crips, clean,
> >>> stylish and probably as neutral as you can get - no loud colours,
> >>> drastic layouts or hard edges.
> >> AFAIK, this has never been the aim for the Ubuntu default theme - and
> >> I don't think it ever will be. Sometimes going for love it or hate it
> >> beats going for bland. At least then people see it!
> >> As long as I can remember the Ubuntu Theme has been part of the
> >> branding, something that helps make Ubuntu known, something for people
> >> to talk about. From this point of view, it has worked very well - if
> >> you see a screenshot of linux and it is brown, you _know_ it is ubuntu
> >> - if you see a blue distro.... who knows...
> > I'm not saying don't be brown, or to lose the Ubuntu theme, but to avoid
> > anything overly stylized. Most people using a computer will never touch
> > the default theme settings, and the less likely that a sizable
> > percentage will be sitting in front of something they hate the better.
> > If people want something really cool/different (ultra dark/steampunk
> > etc) then maybe there should be some alternate themes shipped with it so
> > if someone does have a look into the menus something is there.
> > Ulitmately if you really want a radical theme you can with very little
> > effort. The focus should be on giving the people who simply don't care
> > about the subject as pleasant an experience as possible, rather than
> > forcing them to change it because it's horrible (to them).
> > --
> > ubuntu-art mailing list
> > ubuntu-art at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
> > --
> > -Ken Vermette
> i'm is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a
> ubuntu-art mailing list
> ubuntu-art at lists.ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-art