[ubuntu-art] Stop kickin' the dead horse - Create a full Union GTK theme.

Sebastian Billaudelle sebbil at gmx.de
Thu Jan 3 11:07:42 GMT 2008

Hi folks!

I think one of the problems creating a theme like Kens mockup could be,
that (AFAIK) there is no gtk-engine supporting things like rounded
corners for menus, because the only transparency we can get there comes
from compiz/beryl/xcompmgr.
I think we would need to hack an engine...

cheers Sebastian Billaudelle
Am Mittwoch, den 02.01.2008, 23:32 -0500 schrieb Ken Vermette:

> 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)
> --Ken Vermette
> 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 this? 
>         >>
>         > 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.  Ideally
>         >>> a default theme should not be even noticed by the public -
>         being neutral 
>         >>> and innofensive as possible should be the goal.  A perfect
>         demonstration
>         >>> 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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/attachments/20080103/742be24b/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the ubuntu-art mailing list