unity-design team mailing list archive

[Omar B. <estelar57@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not sure how mandriva did it, but even if they are using QT/kde it looks like gtk/gnome.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mandriva-2011-RC1-Looks-Impressive-Screenshot-Tour-208775.shtml

all apps blend in quite nicely, even dolphin looks like gtk.

http://ununseptium.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mandriva2012.png

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:59:03 -0500
From: shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx
To: afrowildo@xxxxxxxxx; unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future

While I'm sure that is the intent, no, Qt doesn't look 100% native. It looks MOSTLY right, but it is still off. Things like the buttons looking slightly different, randomly using bold for button text, still using GTK 2 (just nitpicking there, I'm sure that's being worked on). 

And that's partly the point: yes, they work, but we have a sort of uncanny valley situation arising with Ubuntu except the definition of what is "human" for Ubuntu is nowhere to be found.


On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Chris Wilson <afrowildo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

An app that is written in Qt does not automatically have a particular visual theme. Instead, Qt inherits the theme of whatever platform it's compiled on. When I compile my Qt code on Ubuntu, it always looks like a native GTK+ based app. I've not done it yet on Windows or Mac OS, but if I were to compile it on either of them, it would look as native as those apps produced by Microsoft and Apple. The problem I've seen with Qt-based apps from the USC is that they're compiled on another platform, and the binary is packaged for Ubuntu.




An intelligent toolkit used by a competent developer can easily be used to produce apps that look native, and we shouldn't be excluding technoligies because of the way some people use them. We should instead be educating people about how they can theme their apps appropriately. 




If professional developers decide they want to target their app at Ubuntu, they're going to go to developer.ubuntu.com, because they're already trained to go to developer.microsoft.com and developer.apple.com to learn about how to develop for those particular platforms. If we can direct them to documentation on how to effectively theme their app for Ubuntu, then visual consistency shouldn't be a problem.




On 25 February 2012 16:37, Mark Curtis <merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:







Why does Ubuntu have a  redundant title bar when the Windows and OSX versions do not?

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 		 	   		   		 	   		  

--

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