[Appeal] Appeal & Tango: Care to Dance?
kwwii at bootsplash.org
Sun Oct 16 22:30:13 CEST 2005
On Oct 16, 2005, at 18:56 , Steven Garrity wrote:
> Greetings all,
> My name is Steven Garrity - I've been helping out a bit with the Tango
> Project . The goals of the Tango project seem to line up pretty
> closely with the goals of the Appeal project.
> Is there any interest here in talking to see what our projects
> could share?
I think that there definitely are several areas in which we could
> I have seen some comments that the icon theme work happening on the
> Tango project is too close to the Gnome visual style. If that's the
> case, come and let us know! It's not too late to help steer the visual
> style of the icon set.
I think that the most important thing to keep in mind when discussing
issues like this is the difference between community and vendor.
For a community project the look and feel of their effort represents
their visual identity and as such is very important. I think that
generalizing this between projects, instead of having a positive
affect for either project will only have a negative one for both,
either in the short or long term.
Vendors on the other hand are free to "do as they desire" as long as
the communities are not negatively affected, resulting in a lose of
This is not say that I do not realize the vendors desire for "one
desktop" without having to chose between the two major linux desktops
but rather that I would prefer a different approach to the subject
which includes and encourages the communities to work toward a common
goal while not diluting the vision of the individual projects. Best
of all my way does not require any "choosing" as this level.
Most important to a vendor is that the desktop they sell be complete
and in no way visually disparate. While simply hardcoding or themeing
both desktops to look the same is one answer I do not think that this
is the right approach because the functionality will still be
different and there is no easy way around this, in fact it is one of
the core reasons that different communities still exist.
The real subject at hand is that a vendor wants all X-desktop apps
running under Y-desktop to look like and function as much as possible
like Y-desktop programs. This in my eyes can be accomplished by
technical work in both projects as well as on fd.o but is not an
issue of artwork itself.
> There is also more to Tango (as with Appeal) than an icon theme. We'd
> like to work on generally making the free/open-source desktop more
> beautiful and enjoyable to use.
While both projects do have much more to them than an icon theme I
think that the separation is clearer with Appeal and Oxygen. In fact,
the Oxygen theme is not really a work of Appeal in and of itself but
rather one of the first manifestations of the work sponsored/
encouraged/introduced by the Appeal project, much the same as the
The Appeal project is a direct approach to innovation in all areas
(including future desktop development) as applied to the KDE desktop.
I think that the main difference lies in the fact that Tango aims to
be cross-desktop by intention whereas Appeal is as a result of its
place in any cross-desktop strategy.
> Something that might be a quick/easy win for all of us is the Icon
> Naming Specification  at Freedesktop.org. This could make it easier
> for both of our communities to share artwork (both ways). We could use
> your help in filling out the spec as well.
Full ack (I hear that from Eva again and again and always wanted to
use it once).
This would be one of the quickest and best thing for us to work on. I
think that pretty much everyone agrees that a common naming scheme
based on the work at fd.o is a good idea, although due to binary
compatibility problems this will not be possible before the KDE4 time
I do however, think that there is an extra step which needs to be
taken in order to create a truly enterprise-ready icon theme -
defining metaphors. This step would allow "theme-free" documentation,
support and usability.
Here is my opinion on what both our projects should see as common goals:
1) Finalize and implement the naming spec.
2) Implement an icon switching mechanism in both desktops, so that
the specific desktop uses its icons also in "other-desktop" apps.
3) Define common metaphors and other general rules for use in icons
per the naming spec given above.
4) Encourage communities to use this platform to their advantage
through vendor contribution and cooperation (ie. implement this on a
I could go on to add another dreamy step....
5) Plan for the future...create a cross-desktop interface switching
mechanism for both desktops so that a Gnome file dialog opened in KDE
functions like other KDE apps and vice versa.
I am afraid that this issue (on both sides) would be too much for
this to happen any time in the near future. Indeed one could argue
that the major difference between the two communities is the
technical, funtional and visual issues. While the technical sides
should naturally "play good together" I think that without a certain
amount of difference here there no longer needs to be two
communities. This is left to the functional and visual parts and that
is something that takes years to change. The visual aspect is a
matter of identification and coherence and while in some aspects it
is good to support other projects in others it is more important to
influence the community itself. In fact, without the second part the
first will never work long-term.
> I hope you don't see this as off-topic on this list - thanks for
> your time.
Thanks for taking the chance to open a discussion :-)
-->no matter where you go, there you are!
More information about the Appeal