Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Ross Martinek <triarius12 gmail com>]

Alex,

I did apologize in advance for acerbidity (not a word ;^} ) And it’s just my strongly stated opinion. To me, 
anything that performs its function as well as the operator’s ability allows is a thing of beauty, regardless 
of what it looks like. (No, I’m not an engineer. =^D )

I like your attitude. As long as this is the way the developers see things, I see no problem.

It’s just that I have too much experience re-engineering (or back-engineering) things that were well 
designed, then ruined by the accountants and ad departments. I can’t do this with electronics or 
software—hence my apprehension. I’ve seen too many good things ruined by making them look “sexy,” or 
whatever, or by making them less functional for profit’s sake. At least the latter is not likely to be a 
problem here.

But I don’t think you can argue that our society pays far too much attention to appearance at the cost of 
substance. So being an old curmudgeon, when I see someone advocating improved appearance, it’s going to get a 
reaction—strongly stated, but civil, I hope. (I try not to make global warming any worse, but there are 
occasional episodes of localized, total atmospheric ionization …)

So a suggestion: Why not ask the users, or at least members of this list, rather than the developers, to 
produce the cosmetic enhancements. The users are artists of one sort or another. Here’s an opportunity to use 
their skills and talents to give back for some great, free software.

Ross


> On Oct 20, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre prokoudine gmail com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:
> > Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my
> > life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is.
> > Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.
> >
> > Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet
> > someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on
> > the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”
> >
> > So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time
> > thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete,
> > utter waste of their time.
>
> Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree.
>
> First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can
> be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was
> entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with
> few exceptions).
>
> Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who
> lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough
> place to discuss this to _me_.
>
> > Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and
> > works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad
> > campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone
> > who looks past the exterior knows it.
>
> uncapable software + bad visuals = no go
>
> uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long
>
> capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users
>
> capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned
>
> What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be
> ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag
> about, no?
>
> The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in
> upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly
> sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion.
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:    gimp-user-list gnome org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list