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

[Ross Martinek <triarius12 gmail com>]

Comments in-line.

Ross


> On Oct 21, 2017, at 5:51 AM, Maurizio Paglia <mpaglia0 gmail com> wrote:
>
> 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’.

I disagree completely. I am a “normal” user, and I do not think GIMP is dead. Quite the contrary. Adobe 
Photoshop is dead to the normal, or average, user. The only people using PS are either corporately supported 
or students—no one else can afford it. (Hence my earlier remark about “real” artists.) Where are the “have 
nots” going? To GIMP. I know several successful artists who have abandoned PS for GIMP, and I’m aware of many 
more. I did two lectures on a particular aspect of fantasy art last March. Of those attending, two used PS 
because their employers paid for it. Of the rest, about five used GIMP. Everyone else wanted to know where to 
get it, and one PS user said he was going to recommend it to his employer.
> 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!)

Propaganda is definitely evil: “Propaganda: chiefly derogatory, information, especially of a biased or 
misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause, or point of view.” By your 
associating marketing with propaganda, marketing is therefore evil. Personally, I tend to agree, at least 
about the current fashion in marketing. >}:-{D>

> and I think GIMP can [have 
> to] improve also on the look side.

You must work for Apple. Simply not true unless you are marketing to iDiots who know nothing except iWant the 
latest. Software development isn’t about fashion, or the latest “look” —especially if the software is free. 
Because GIMP is free, its merits are its only other “selling” points.

> 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.

GIMP is already valid. Either something is valid or it isn’t, there is no such thing as “half 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!

I get the distinct impression from what you say and how you say it that you work in marketing. I don’t think 
marketing is needed here, at least not the kind you propose. No one is selling GIMP, at least not legally. 
Making it look “sexy” will not garner more users. Making and keeping it functional, by itself, will do so. If 
there is anything GIMP needs, it’s more word-of-mouth (or electronic media) “advertising.”

You can’t “tell the whole world,” but you can tell everyone you know, even if they don’t use such software. 
Someone they know might lament the state (EXPENSE) of Adobe and PS, at which point your non-artistic 
acquaintance says “Have you tried GIMP? Its free and <insert your name here> loves it!” Been there, done 
that. Have yet to hear anyone say, “Nah, I’ll stick with Photoshop.” I have had near strangers thank me a 
year later for the recommendation.

> Thank you,
> Maurizio
> _______________________________________________
> 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