breeze mimetypes

[kainz.a]

I blog on the planet more open isn't possible.included reddit. You can
wrote a mail to the mailing list but I never get feedback from there that's
the reason I start the blog posts.

Am 17.09.2016 14:30 schrieb "Alessandro Longo" <alexl at openmailbox.org>:

> Il 17 settembre 2016 13:47:36 CEST, BM-2cTv4XtvC9UQ8TdFCfPNySv2omc8T6
> m3sv 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/e517f6b4/attachment-0001.html>