Opposition to removing old KWin themes?

[nuno pinheiro]

> A word on elegance,  I watched Aaron's Akademy video, and fear that
> some people are interpreting Elegance as just minimalistic.
> 
> Elegance includes a notion of completeness, an ability to do
> everything, in an intuitive manner.   It can take complex rendering
> and work to find the elegant solution.
>
No but I can give you my gut feeling on the current situation, and that is, 
"what a load of crappy undesigned options this guys are clueless" 
probably not a very elegant thing to think, software should be appellatively 
simple at first glance, its should say "i have a polished low steepness 
learning curve" and it should grow on you, it should be an experience that 
show you new tools and ways to do things in a non intrusive way every day.   

> Sticking options in a deeper menu is simple, but dirty.. it makes
> using the software more difficult, 

So if we had 60 different themes, the best way to present them would still be 
in a flat list? You know how do you lose a needle?  you lose it in a hey 
stack! not in a clean room

> and In my role I help people use
> computers who have vision problems and slow computers. I personally
> think that the gradient themes are inelegant.

That means that nature is inelegant? our gradients do not clutter anything as 
a mater of fact they were made to mimic the way materials behave in the real 
world, plus I see a lot more texture and visual junk in some of the old themes 

> They clutter my screen
> with decoration and I don't bitch about them because I can figure out
> where to turn them off.
> 
> A trade off-- Please make it so that the option-reducing minimalists
> have to follow a procedure to hide options that "floof minimalists"
> need to reduce "floof"    The "floof minimalists" already have to deal
> with a default theme that they need to turn off.    It's a compromise
> to make it so all parties have to participate in similar numbers of
> steps.
> 
> Of note, If most people are happy with the default theme, why would
> they even go in to change the theme?

Just because if elegance as to be real it needs to be all around the system 
and not just default land.
Beyond what we really offer in our software, there is a much more valuable 
aspect of what we "sell" and that is the intangible values of what we are, 
Now if we just want to be a geek all grounds testing project, than maybe we 
are doing great, but if we want to become meaningful,  our intangible message 
needs to be worked on and that means that it needs to be consistent all over 
the place.

I'm not proposing a gnome's dumb striped down version of what you can do, I'm 
proposing something  that scales with your experience with the software, I'm 
proposing something balanced and simple to use, but that still shows ways for 
the 2% user base to find what they need.      

> =========================
> I care about easy interpretation of how things are supposed to work,
> (an area where we fail is the system-settings where "safe hyperlink
> like buttons" act like buttons, and then behave like "danger
> items--unknown double click required"
> 
> I care about identification of icons and graphics. -- KDE is great in
> this regard,  Most icons are identifiable at a glance...

(thanks in this regard, we still need to work on may things dough)

> I care about options,

I care about options 2 just that I think that flat option lists have problems 
and that if most of those options are to 90% users ugly we make a statement 
about ourself's and I don't like that statement.

> =========================
> 
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Chani <chanika at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On July 24, 2010 12:55:25 Chani wrote:
> >> > > Keeping in line with your analogy, I hope your wife did not throw
> >> > > away all your white socks to be sure you could not embarass
> >> > > yourself...
> >> > 
> >> > if i had any im sure she would, and you know what i would probably
> >> > thank her in the end :)
> >> 
> >> really? wow...
> >> I would seriously break up with anyone who pulled a stunt like that.
> >> my choices are my own, and *nobody* has a right to make them for me.
> > 
> > ...
> > However, if they suggested that I not wear them, explained why, and put
> > them in a hard-to-reach drawer I probably wouldn't be so angry. ;)
> > 
> > It's a matter of guidance vs. force.

-- 
oxygen guy, "I make the pretty pictures"