unity-design team mailing list archive

["frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx" <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

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..