Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:45 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> In my opinion, yes, it has to come now, or it will never come. It is 
> already a regression that it was there and is no longer there. I prefer 
> the look of my 2.8 desktop with icons that were "consistent enough" to 
> my 2.12 desktop where I've lost information that was presented to me 
> before. I agree that the old way was not maintainable.

You haven't lost any information, you only think you have. You're
looking for the information in the wrong place.

If you have a suggestion for how exactly one might show the difference
between tiff, jpeg, svg, wmf, gif, png, tga, and whatever else there is,
without using meaningful text in the icon, I am all ears. Until then, we
are going to follow the HIG and avoid those problems we've been
promoting in the past. If you think this is a regression, then every bug
fix that has gone into GTK+ in the last 4 years is a regression, where
some user or developer has gotten used to some behavior in the look, or
feel, or API. I'm sure I could come up with quite a long list, and quite
frankly, perpetually arguing whether one thing is a regression versus
another, on this list, is a waste of time. We're better off ignoring the
bike shedding, and just working to fix the problems off the list, than
having everyone and their brother jump in to claim that they have their
own personal regressions.

So, instead of trying to come up with all these personal regressions,
and arguing on and on about them on the list, let's get back to work
and actually make the desktop kick ass. Because that's all I'm here to

-- dobey

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]