Re: [Usability] (no subject)

On 12/13/05, Josue Farde <josuefrade sapo pt> wrote:
> I've been looking into gnome and as i already said i do believe in the
> concept of being simple, althoug gnome does need a lot of other
> important things i have to say that to make it more friendly and
> aceptable to everybody there is a need to change the graphics. They look
> old and 'taky', for the user to have a better feelling when using gnome,
> gnome needs to to heve a more modern look.

There's pretty modern looks at

if you want one.

You state that "to make it more friendly and aceptable to everybody".
I would like to ask few questions about this:

 - Which one of those at would be "the most acceptable" one?
 - What makes you think so?
 - Do you have examples of an "acceptable" and "friendly" look so we
could get a reference point to compare GNOME's current look and
determine where it goes wrong?

> what do u think??

I think that style issues are more opinions, and changing the default
theme from "decent" to "somewhat better" required very big and lenghty
discussion so going from "somewhat better" to "strikingly modern and
new" would probably be too much as a single step.

It's better to have a slightly dull default (which is debatable) with
more modern looks as options (theme changing (and usually installing
too) is easy and there's some options included in the base GNOME
distribution) than to constantly fight over which of the hip themes
should be the default today.

Remember how the Aqua look was so popular that everybody had a theme
with glassy buttons? How many still uses that? How many people really
wouldn't change away from it if it were the default?

Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi
Powered by

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