Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:49 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> 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.

Do you honestly not see the difference between information
that is right in front of me and information that is buried
in a properties dialog box behind a right-click menu?

And actually, I just brought up the properties dialog for
one of the remote server links on my desktop.  This is an
old 2.12 setup, so maybe things have changed, but I don't
see the protocol anywhere in that dialog.

> 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
> do.

Lots and lots of people have voiced serious concerns about
this.  And those concerns have been coming up for quite a
while.  I remember being in this same argument months ago,
well before 2.14 was released.

Why is it that when people voice their concerns, they're
accused of contributing to the "bike shed effect"?  We've
got this handy little phrase we can use to blow people off,
instead of listening to what they have to say.

That is not the way to build community software, and it is
certainly not the way to build community.


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