breeze mimetypes

[Alessandro Longo]

Il 17 settembre 2016 13:47:36 CEST, BM-2cTv4XtvC9UQ8TdFCfPNySv2omc8T6m3sv at bitmessage.ch ha scritto:
>> Il 16-09-2016 22:41
>BM-2cTv4XtvC9UQ8TdFCfPNySv2omc8T6m3sv at bitmessage.ch
>> ha scritto:
>>> Executable mime doesn't have the "!".
>>
>> It doesn't, the triangle + "!" is added on any icon that is an
>> executable but isn't mark as "executable", for security reasons.
>>
>>> Anyway, we should have a specific shape for execs because:
>>>
>>> 1) executables now can easily be discovered into folders with a lot
>of
>>> file.
>>> Try to download a fairly big (or at least not small) source code of
>>> some
>>> software and compile it.
>>> Search for the executable into that mess of files.
>>> With the current shape it's easy.
>>> Now try to do it with the previous shape.
>>> You will probably give up.
>>> I do this a lot of time (I'm a packager at ChakraOS), so I can tell
>how
>>> important this point is, expecially for a developer.
>>>
>>> 2) executables triggers some actions. So they can't be clicked with
>the
>>> same lightheart you'd click a document file for example. If you use
>a
>>> different shape you can easily recognize a exec and don't click it
>for
>>> error. Once you clicked on a exec there's no way back so it's very
>>> important this.
>>> It's very frustrating for a user clicking on an exec because it
>>> resembled
>>> another file.
>>
>> We can make the executable icon more recognizable but keeping the
>> document shape. If you can't find easily files by type, you can just
>set
>> Dolphin to sort them by type and group them. The most important thing
>in
>> my opinion is to distinguish files from apps. Executable files **are
>> not** apps. Apps are represented by .desktop files that specify icon
>and
>> other parameters.
>
>We don't need to differentiate files from apps.
>Apps are found on the launcher menu, mimetypes on the file manager.
>Yes, I know you can search for docs on the fullscreen launcher, but the
>gear icon is very generic and it doesn't resemble no app.
>We already had a single shape for every mimetype but this led to
>usability
>problems. Now that we agreed to use different shapes for important
>categories of mime it doesn't make sense to go back ;)
>
>>> MS office icons are pretty similar to the past years (they didn't
>>> changed
>>> too much).
>>> I think every user on this planet knows ms office logo or used word
>and
>>> similar,
>>> so they are very recognizable.
>>
>> They are from MS Office 2013+. Many people just use MS Office 2003,
>2007
>> and 2010. Also, docx etc are not formats exclusively for MS Office.
>It's
>> an open standard (I know sound strange, that's a bad story).
>
>Yes, but like I said they are very very similar. A user that saw office
>2003 icon will instantly recognize office 2027 icon.
>
>>> .docx and .odt are different format, they can't be treated the same.
>>> .docx is the de facto standard, so it's requested any time you share
>>> some
>>> documents in a workplace or a public administration. Also most of
>the
>>> users uses MS office that can't open .odt format (even thought they
>say
>>> you can, but that's another story) so often you are required to use
>>> .docx.
>>> That's very important when sharing documents, that's why we should
>keep
>>> .odt and .docx easily recognizable.
>>
>> In fact the ones I proposed are not equal for ODF and docx etc.
>
>Yes but they are very similar and differ just by colours. Like some
>users
>pointed out on reddit it doesn't make sense distinguish mime with
>colours,
>how can I know if odt is blu and ms office black? What if you decide to
>change colour later on? I will still be able to recognize them?
>It's better to distinguish them with a different icon instead of a
>color.
>
>> @Andreas, apply new shapes now is an useless work, I have to
>overwrite
>> everything when apply colors, so please let's decide shapes and when
>> they are definitive apply shapes + colors.
>>
>> --
>> Alessandro Longo
>>

Mixing apps and files is basic in my workflow. I think that Breeze introduced a good innovation making clear what are files and what apps.

I think we shouldn't change that in my opinion, 3 designers shouldn't apply a so big change to the default icon theme of the entire KDE community.
I think images, archives, videos and audio are better with different shapes but keeping the one color + symbol pattern. Not introducing complexity like app icons.

Please, before decide big changes, discuss them in usability and visual-design mailing lists.
One reason I left VDG is because it's a closed team and decisions are obscured to the rest of the community. This discussion seems the same. We have to involve more people to apply big changes. And users on Reddit aren't representative of KDE Community. The opinion of people more involved in KDE should be considered more. Random thoughts on the web mean nothing to me.
Also, we should do a poll and publish it on the Planet at least.
I have no intention to justify changes with angry members that will ask for transparency when they will see changes.

Cheers,

-- 
Alessandro Longo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/visual-design/attachments/20160917/74e1e91a/attachment.html>