Hi folks,

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:30:59PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:

I'm afraid to say that http://layers.gimp.org/ is incredibly ugly, and makes us look very bad. As people who develop an image editing software we should have at least a bit of rudimentary aesthetic sense.

Carol told me she tried to make it look like the Layers dialog. Well, that's not what I'd like to see there, and even so with some CSS and images it can look much better. In any case, a web page can be even more visually appealing without trying to emulate a GUI dialog.

Besides the technical problems, I think you should propose a new site layout than just pestering about the current layout.

I think 'ugly' is a very subjective term and if no one comes up with something better I wouldn't change anything in Carols position. This is similar to what GIMP users nag the developers about (Usability, Window Management, etc)

Greetings,

On Aug 29, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Well, we can use any of the following designs, which are much better:

* http://www.planetapache.org/

* http://advogato.ev-en.org/

* http://planet.gnome.org/

* http://planetsun.org/

I recall seeing even better looking planets in my neverending web surfing.
Plus, we can always re-use a theme of WordPress or whatever.

I personally much prefer the current custom, unique layout than ripping either one of those (or any other, for that matter) sites' layouts or simply taking a wordpress theme and adapting it.

I don't necessarily agree with the current one being "ugly", per se, though I agree it needs some work. Mostly it's too bulky. I like the idea of making it look like a layers dialog a lot.

Regards,

Marco Wessel

On 8/29/06, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Well, we can use any of the following designs, which are much better:

* http://www.planetapache.org/

* http://advogato.ev-en.org/

* http://planet.gnome.org/

* http://planetsun.org/

I recall seeing even better looking planets in my neverending web surfing. Plus, we can always re-use a theme of WordPress or whatever.

Then there is no sense in naming the planet "layers" anymore. I agree that implementation could be better, though I can even imagine how exactly within current approach).

Alexandre

Von: Shlomi Fish

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:14, Carol Spears wrote:

when i put together the people for the gtk+ planet, i limited it to only those who had contributed for the current version cycle.

I disagree with this strategy. First of all, because it may imply that people that did not contribute for the next version will be removed. And secondly, because many people contributed in the past and are worth mentioning.

IMO it is worth mentioning that we did discuss a similiar distinction for the GIMP about dialog during LGM. Right now, it looks like GIMP has a huge amount of active developers. This may explain why some people think that we're turining down enhancement requests because we don't like them, while the reason is we just don't have the manpower. So carol's trategy doesn't sound like the worst possible metric to me.

Likewise, the feeds provided at gimp.org should be about people involved with GIMP. Originally there was one feed for the active developers and and for active users. IMO it should also be limited to posts in the respective person's gimp- or graphics-related categories. For example, we do not need to relay conspiracy theories or nationalist thoughts.

Regards, Michael

From: Shlomi Fish

I'm afraid to say that http://layers.gimp.org/ is incredibly ugly, and makes us look very bad. As people who develop an image editing software we should have at least a bit of rudimentary aesthetic sense.

If this were a bug report, the first thing we would do is demand that the bug reporter apologize for using such unnecessarily abusive language, and explain that antagonizing people is not the way to get a problem fixed.

Well, it *is* a bug report!

-- Bill

______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the CNPRC Email system at primate.ucdavis.edu

Hi,

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 13:34 +0200, Roman Joost wrote:

Besides the technical problems, I think you should propose a new site layout than just pestering about the current layout.

That's of course correct but Shlomi has a point here. The pages that he mentioned look vastly different than the rest of the site. Whether you call them ugly (I do) or not, they are definitely different and contribute a lot to the inconsistency of the current website.

I really hope that at some point a group of people will take the challenge to redo the whole plethora of gimp.org websites and attempt to unify them. Currently it is very difficult for our users and (potential) developers to locate the information they are looking for.

The right place to discuss this is probably the gimp-web mailing-list.

I think 'ugly' is a very subjective term and if no one comes up with something better I wouldn't change anything in Carols position. This is similar to what GIMP users nag the developers about (Usability, Window Management, etc)

Carol isn't even in the position to change anything. As far as I remember she quit development of the website years ago and personally, I would welcome if she stayed out of it completely. At the moment, noone is actively working on gimp.org besides occasional maintainance by a handful of people.

Sven

Hi,

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 19:09 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

Then there is no sense in naming the planet "layers" anymore. I agree that implementation could be better, though I can even imagine how exactly within current approach).

There has never been a good reason to call it "layers". The naming and design has also never been discussed here or on the gimp-web list. It just happened to be done. Which is often good. In this particular case though, I don't think that the result is very useful.

Sven