unity-design team mailing list archive

[Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx>]

Symbolic icons are better used for functions or tasks within an
app/application/program (which I here use interchangeably). The back button
in a browser.

Who said the web browsers are broken? I use two to help stay organized. In
one browser, I always have bookmarks, saved passwords and sessions, tabs,
history, and auto fill for work, while in the other, I keep personal tabs,
bookmarks, passwords, etc.

How will the user know which app is set a default anyway? What if they want
to change it? Short of looking in the settings or haphazardly opening it to
find out, there isn't one.

A good UI will balance form and function. You don't want to try and adapt
function to fit form; if you have to go one way or the other, it's much
better to sacrifice form for function. Symbolic icons are unintuitive and
very confusing to new users, and they serve very little function since the
current, branded icons are symbolic anyway.

--Ian Santopietro

"Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended"

Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA):
http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?
op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234
On Jan 12, 2012 12:58 AM, "frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx" <
frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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..
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>