Re: Gnome "Eyecandy" Project?

Ryan Muldoon wrote:
> Would there be any value to organizing an Eyecandy project for GNOME?
> Basically, I would see this as entailing three parts:
> 1. Stock Backgrounds
>   This would be a (reasonably limited) set of desktop backgrounds.  Most
> likely they would be broken down into categories like "photography",
> "patterns", and "drawings".  The focus would be quality over quantity.
> A few nice looking images that work well as a desktop background (taking
> into account having icons on top, etc). and the other sites already provide enough.
Maybe just a few backgrounds with a gnome-related theme in a separate
package (like gnome-audio).

> 2. Stock Themes
>   Basically, this would be a selection of 10 or so of the highest
> quality themes for gtk (and Sawfish?) - that is, they are complete
> themes, they look good with the major GNOME apps, and are usable.  Once
> again, this would be a quality over quantity effort.

We already have themes for gtk coming as part as gtk+-themes. Sawfish
also has some stock themes.
What we need is metatheme to get to a point where we can include it in
gnome, so that sawfish/window manager theme, gtk+ theme and background
are suited to look good together.

> 3. Stock Icons
>   This is the largest part of the project.  What needs to happen is to
> revitalize the icon project.  We need to set some standards for the
> gnome icons, and update and augment the existing icon set.  We should
> also see how the icon project should be working with things that
> Nautilus brings to the table, like zooming and such.

It at least needs updating. But it's not very clear if you talk about
the "stock icons" as in the ones in gnome-libs (and soon gtk+) for
toolbars and dialogs, or the icons included with gmc (before) and
gnome-vfs now (iirc).

The stock icons in gnome-libs are pixmaps and then have a limited number
of colors (kinda), and especially are missing alpha-transparency. (Is
this still an issue for gtk+-2.0 ?). The stock icons included in
gnome-vfs/nautilus can be changed and eazel and ximian are probably
working on completing the sets of icons needed for their different

> Quickly identifiable problems are as follows:
>   a. Many icons fade to white rather than clear
>   b. Icons aren't all using the same perspective
>   c. Icons aren't using dropshadows consistently
>   d. Not all icons have the same visual dimensions (2d or 3d)
>   e. Should icons be working off of the same color cube?
>   f. Icons need to be made at multiple sizes, to scale nicely
>   g. Many filetypes and programs still need icons
>   h. Many (filetype) icons are sub-optimal, and not very
> distinctive/informative.
> Is there any interest/value in perhaps working on such a project?  Is
> there another project that has goals similar to this?  Feedback would be
> appreciated.

I think reviving would be a good
idea. Even better would be setting up a mailing-list where graphics
people could be asked sets of icons or graphics, or even give each other
a hand, and opinions on each others artwork. I think that would
certainly take a load of tigert's and jimmac's mailboxes, to only name

I think this discussion would be better suited to gnome-hackers.
Comments ?


/Bastien Nocera

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