unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx
<frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Removing all but one color from an icon by default is a bad idea,
>> unless the icon is supposed to be that way. Even these exceptions
>> should be kept to a minimum. The issue that arises is that there are
>> two main characteristics people use when quickly identifying an icon:
>> color and shape. If we make all the icons one color, then this
>> distinction is lost, and we must rely on shape alone, which isn't idea
>> for many people. This is the exact inverse of a theme like faenza,
>> where all the icons are the same shape (you lose the differences in
>> shape, then you only have color left).
>
>
> perhaps my wording was ambiguous or unclear, i mean to suggest the
> introduction of symbols instead of branding icons into the launcher.
> does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim
> at developing it themselves?
> I think Ayatana should come up with symbols for the Unity UI, including
> launcher SYMBOLS for default webbrowser, default email UI, default IM UI and
> default file management UI.
>
> Ayatana aka Canonical also came up with symbols for workspace switcher,
> trash and Dash, so it is not far fetched to do the same for default apps
> such as firefox and thunderbird, empathy and totem, gnome-terminal,
> gnome-calculator, [skype,] gnome-terminal and USC.
>
> symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons.

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.

> 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.

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.

Jeremy