[ubuntu-art] hardy artwork

Kenneth Wimer kwwii at ubuntu.com
Tue Jan 29 22:17:16 GMT 2008


I like the simplicity of Aurora and think that we can take ideas from it for 
the future. At first glance it seems quite like the Oxygen style created for 
KDE4 in some ways. Not sure how much is possible in the short term as far as 
that kind of coding goes (or how flexible the engine is to allow us adopt it 
to our needs). If we have mockups of exactly where we want to go we might be 
able to find a developer to realize it. In the future I think if we start to 
develop something new we should look into good ideas from several themes, not 
just adopt one "as-is". Whatever we pick to use in Hardy should reflect a 
step in that direction. Probably a very small step but at this point in time 
having a long term plan and just beginning to realize it would be a huge step 
for Ubuntu artwork.

On Tuesday 29 January 2008 23:04:52 Nemes Ioan Sorin wrote:
> I don't wanna Aurora ...because of myself.
>
> It's OK, is slow maybe, on my machine run just fine, I have to reaffirm
> cos WE CAN USE Visual Proposals and Visual Enhancements from Aurora as
> good ideas for the new Ubuntu theme.
>
> btw Aurora is not highest rated in gnome-look (at GTK2) because of
> engine(90% of users don't know about the difference between engine and
> theme) but because the look. They like what they see.
>
> For most users Aurora is a step forward in the right direction (as Apple
> do for long time -> an intuitive, semantical UI (icons and icon groups)
> - more than a logical(orthodox) one (with lots of text menus and
> vertical / horizontal separators)).
>
> Aurora is simple, round, clean, arrows on widgets are tringles not "V"'s
> gradients are unobtrusive - scrollbars finally look good and personal
> (not like old gtk scrollbars).
>
> Maybe a fine tune of Murrina engine (I already have a Murrina
> configurator ) can solve a lot of problems regarding -> bad contrast /
> pale difference between UI parts with different functions.
>
> So why we should "stamp" a foot in the back to something instead to
> taken good things from inside. I am always concerned about "positivist
> logic" on communities [...].
>
> My proposal was to look at it's best parts not to ...adopt Aurora.
>
> Also taking count on his popularity - that means they succeed in some
> aspects and we can benefit from this. Just think about.
>
> That's my lobby. Point.
>
> On the other side "clearlooks hack" is a pretty nice proposal - no
> horizontal separators - an other step in the good direction.
>
> SorinN
>
> Sebastian Billaudelle wrote:
> >   I don't like Aurora, because ist's a very slow engine. At my machine
> > (Pentium M, 1500 MHz; 768 MB RAM; ...) you can watch the widgets
> > loading;-) Gtkperf doesn't like Aurora, too;-)
> >
> > cheers Sebastian
> >
> > Am Dienstag, den 29.01.2008, 04:27 +0200 schrieb SorinN:
> >>  Clear Looks or Ubuntulooks would look nice with an usable scrollbar (
> >>  I mean distinctive ) - as the Aurora theme has ( even that Aurora tent
> >>  to be on top of highest rated of gtk2 engines on gnome-look.org [
> >>  that's mean something - rest of the world dont care about what we talk
> >>  here ;) - maybe we can keep something good this engine -> if  we don't
> >>  like / want  Aurora at the end ).
> >>
> >>  Murrine can be a good engine too on the other side - with the same
> >>  problem - scrollbar face need a lift on it's form ( to be more
> >>  visible, ( using a  scrolltrack gradient [ ... ] ). Also default font
> >>  for Murrine on Cimi website screenshots is a bit scary regarding  it's
> >>  usability - a little bit fat font could be a better solution on small
> >>  UI widgets.
> >>
> >>  --
> >>  Nemes Ioan Sorin



More information about the ubuntu-art mailing list