[ubuntu-art] Stop kickin' the dead horse - Create a full Union GTK theme.
sebbil at gmx.de
Thu Jan 3 11:07:42 GMT 2008
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
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
> >>> of this is Apple, where the current theme for OSX is
> crips, clean,
> >>> stylish and probably as neutral as you can get - no loud
> >>> 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
> >> 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
> > percentage will be sitting in front of something they hate
> the better.
> > If people want something really cool/different (ultra
> > etc) then maybe there should be some alternate themes
> shipped with it so
> > if someone does have a look into the menus something is
> > 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...
More information about the ubuntu-art