unity-design team mailing list archive

[nick rundy <nrundy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, the redesign is good news for appearance. However, for linux distributions that aren't as evolved as Ubuntu ;) (i.e., those that don't merge the titlebar into the panel for maximized windows), Firefox still cannot display tabs over the titlebar. Granted it's not a problem on Ubuntu (which is one of the reasons I love Unity in Ubuntu), but IMHO it is a major feature absent on Linux. I mention this because I think it illustrates a point relevant to the issue. Chrome can put tabs over the titlebar in Linux.

From: estelar57@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: nrundy@xxxxxxxxxxx; merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx; unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:32:46 +0000







The firefox appearance problem will be no more:

http://www.webupd8.org/2012/02/firefox-to-get-new-default-theme-other.html


the differences will be minimum and the ubuntu version on the pic looks very slick to me (much better than now) and nothing to really envy the appearances from the other OSs. But you never know if some of the ubuntu devs decide to start changing the appearance and make it look weird/uglier again...

From: nrundy@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx; unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:59:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future







I think the community (at a minimum) needs to ask Mozilla and TDF to change toolkits for their Linux offerings. Frankly, Firefox's appearance/presentation on Linux is rather pathetic. Just take a look at the forums and lots of folks are posting pictures of Firefox on Windows and commenting about how nice it looks while bemoaning the appearance of Firefox on Ubuntu. 

Chrome on the other hand looks good on Linux. Here's an article I found about why Chrome went with GTK+: http://www.osnews.com/story/20980/Linux_Version_of_Chrome_To_Use_Gtk_

Basically, Chrome went with GTK+ because it would mean a better Linux product. I have looked at a LOT of performance reviews comparing Firefox and Chrome web browsers. Chrome routinely performs better on Linux than Firefox. And Firefox routinely performs better on Windows. Granted, this probably isn't due solely to the toolkit. But I think it plays a role while also reflecting on the commitment to Linux in the design of the product.

Opening Ubuntu up to Qt I think was good move. It's a widely used toolkit and encouraging app makers to support Ubuntu is important, even at the expense of "seamless appearance." Perhaps in time the integration of Qt won't look so "foreign"?

I think the "toolkit problem" has a solution though and it lies more in getting companies like Mozilla to not be so Windows-centric in their product design and creation. After-all they are gung-ho about open-source and freedom right? Why don't they do more to advance their Linux version of Firefox and Thunderbird? I don't think it's too much to ask.

LibreOffice definitely needs to change toolkits for Linux. Now that OOo is basically no more and LibreOffice is "free" it should embrace Linux and make it's product shine. Changing toolkits I think would go a long way towards accomplishing that.

So I think the solution lies in third-party companies using toolkits that are appropriate for their Linux offering, which presently they are not doing.

From: merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:22:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future







While I like this idea, it'll probably get a lot of flak from the "LINUX IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!11" crowd.

Are we supposed to tell The Document Foundation/Mozilla/etc "hey you want to make an Ubuntu version? Make it in {insert toolkit}?" I understand applications Canonical itself builds should be in the same toolkit, sure, but I don't know how successful it would be forcing/encouraging that for 3rd party applications. Given this is Linux most of the popular applications are third party contrary to Windows and OSX

Compared to the other two operating systems and their applications
Microsoft Windows:
Control Panel, made by Microsoft.
Windows Media Player, made by Microsoft
Internet Explorer, made by Microsoft.
Office, made by Microsoft

Apple OS X:
System Settings, made by Apple
iTunes, made by Apple
Safari, made by Apple
iWork, made by Apple

Canoncial Ubuntu
Control Panel, made by GNOME (Canonical?)
Rhythmbox, made by GNOME
Firefox, made by Mozilla
LibreOffice made by The Document Foundation



Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:40:27 -0500
From: shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx
To: unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future

I was greeted by a small surprise today in updating my Precise machines: a new version of Ubuntu One controls that is made using Qt. All well enough, as it can make it much easier to share code with the Windows version of the app... But there are still some consequences.

First of all, this brings the number of default toolkits up to five. We have Nux (for Unity), VCL (for LibreOffice), XUL (For Firefox and Thunderbird), Qt (for the new control panel), and GTK+ for all else. And no two of them look quite the same. What's worse is that, if we sync back up with GNOME in 12.10, we'll have six toolkits technically because of Clutter.*

Now, this goes against what I thought Precise is to be about, but that's personal.
The real issue is our outward appearance. Does it look good to users when they open a Qt app and it's JUST off enough visually for them to notice? 

Not only do we face the issue of visual inconsistency, but also in a bit of a bind with future aims. We want developers to create and they still don't know what they should use to make things based on what's available. Is all of it good? None? I know we don't exactly have a plethora of quality applications in a single toolkit, but for an LTS, was it really wise to expand the toolkit count further?

We're doing what I accused Linux Mint of doing in my OMGU article: we keep pulling in a bunch of apps because they are good without looking at the whole picture. We need a consistent platform not a station from which we have tracks going off into several very different areas. 

I would have us look into, by the time 14.04 rolls out, having defined an HIG for Ubuntu, a default toolkit and a STRONG push to have default applications only in that toolkit. (In some cases, it's excusable... I don't expect a native browser to pop up out of nowhere and be able to challenge Firefox-- which at least sort of tries to look native) Precise is pixel-perfect? Then let's make sure "T" celebrates the True Toolkit.


*I'm not counting Ubuntu for Android which, I believe brings in another 1-2 toolkits.

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 		 	   		  

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 		 	   		  

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp