On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha
<jbicha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx
It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and
Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That
Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good
thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype
logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider
it.
agreed.
that's why we have symbolic icons which represent a functionality.
The functionality can then be executed by a branded app.
Think of the symbolic icon as a wrapper. That's foundation, platform, Unity, rather than "app".
So to be more specific, a functionality (application) maps to an executor:
www-browser - [firefox|epiphany|chromium|opera|...]
instant-messenger - [empathy|pidgin|ekiga|skype|trillian|...]
file-manager - [thunar|dolphin|marlin|nautilus|mc]
this way the last used "app" will be opened for the respective functionality by "default", when the symbol representing the functionality is clicked.
and: freedom of choice remains untampered with. branding and logo copyrights are unharmed.
to think "free" and "open" doesn't mean we should allow the chaos from the old notification area to bloom in the unity launcher, now that we put an end to it with symbolic indicator menus.
> does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim at developing it themselves?
Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity;
Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And
of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the
Design team.
> remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is "app"
> different from "application"? and what does "application" mean?
I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current
buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a
smartphone app store.
my philosophical rabbit trail, explained:
In today's "buzzy" language, stuff is not defined precisely.
If you want to define a system interface on the other hand, you will need a precise-to-the-core language to do this.
If the wording used to define the system is not precise, the system's architecture will reflect this imprecision on all structural levels.
Imprecision is an advantage in many situations, especially where you need randomness and entropy.
It should be used deliberately, when defining an architecture, which will be used by millions of people for many hours of their lives.
"app" != "application"; application != unequal functionality
symbolic icon maps to functionality
branding icon maps to "executing implementation"
Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm glad that the original poster
was able to set up Ubuntu relatively easily with larger, more visible
icons. I agree that the launcher arrows are not obvious enough; maybe
the designers will try to make them better in the coming weeks.
i'm curious to find out what that will feel like..