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

[Maurizio Paglia <mpaglia0 gmail com>]

In data venerdì 20 ottobre 2017 19:28:03 CEST, Alexandre Prokoudine ha 
scritto:
> 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

Thank you all guys, now the discussion starts to be very interesting.

My first idea (but it is better to call it 'proposal') was absolutely not 
intended to kill GIMP in any way!
I simply think GIMP has something we could change in order to make it more 
appealing.

(@ Ross - I agree with you about beauty but - here - I am speaking about to be 
more appealing, more sexy, not more beautiful.
A beauty software is not useful, a 'nice to see' software will attract more 
users).

I means if we carry on some good maquillage we can help GIMP to reach new 
users, more users means (hopefully) more brainstorming and partecipation and, 
why not, more developer.
GIMP 2.8 was released in 2012: now we are at the end of 2017 and we still do 
not know when GIMP 2.10 will be released.
In software play 5 years are not a long time: this is an era!
If you are a GIMP enthusiast you think 'developer are doing a very hard work 
in order to introduce GEGL, port software to a newer Gtk version, etc. etc.'
If you are a normal user you think 'GIMP is dead'.

To have more users you need more releases, to have more releases you [also] 
need more developers, more ideas, more brainstorming users.
The easiest way to have more users is an attractive look, a little more 
marketing (marketing or propaganda are not evil!) and I think GIMP can [have 
to] improve also on the look side.

You all love Wilber? OK, keep it but think to a more modern/stylized Wilber to 
be used as icon.
Google for 'Wilbur' and you see dozens of different images (for this reason I 
think Wilbur is a mascot and not a logo), now Google for 'NIKE'.
This is a logo: easy to remember, drawable in any size/colour.

I am not asking the developers to carry on this task, they have to invest 
their time in coding and make GIMP more and more valid.
I am asking instead to the many enthusiast of GIMP that (I suppose) have more 
graphic capabilities than developers.
 
Will GIMP 2.10 be a great step ahead?
Tell it to the whole world!

Thank you,
Maurizio