Propose your solution
Attachments
Duplicates
Comments
|
pimlottc
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 08:49
|
|
|
|
Faster performance and vector graphics are a bit at odds with one another.
|
|
Remmy
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 08:50
|
|
|
I want usability out of my system, not eye candy. I like the fact that Gnome is more reserved and focused on usability over a shiny desktop.
|
|
|
It is not an eyecandy feature, it IS a usability issue. If you want to develop a nice/great interface it is way easier to do that with vector graphics than with bitmap.
And an quartz engine makes it easier for developers to create graphical applications. On the mac everything is PDF for example, and that make a HUGE difference if you want to do something graphical.
And if Gnome stays the way it is, it will start looking like something from the 90-s, not after the millennium. For example: all this gray everywhere. People like beautiful, so it is also important for new adoption.
|
|
|
|
As we begin to see bigger differences in screen sizes with Ubuntu being run on ultra portable tiny devices as well as being used on 70 inch home cinema screens then it becomes increasingly important to have everything be Vector.
|
|
Tom Mann
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 12:05
|
|
|
|
I think KDE4 will have the Gnome guys looking into this.
|
|
|
I'm just looking for "shit.png" or "shit.svg" right now. Can't find it.
However, a definite thumbs up here. I don't think that having an icon of a turd is appropriate on Ubuntu.
|
|
miscz
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 13:15
|
|
|
|
Icons in Gnome are made as SVG on 48x48 canvas first, then scaled down to 32x32, 22x22, 16x16 and retouched to be pixel perfect. This is right approach and nothing has to be changed. If SVG was used everywhere then little icons would be too blurry (like in KDE and Vista). They way they are doing it is an usability horror - too much detail goes into small icons making them undreadable. Also, rendering SVG is more resource-intensive and 48x48 icons should be all PNGs.
|
|
|
|
It is true. SVG icons are significantly slower to render in real time. The pre-readied bitmap icons do the same (if you stay at the exact size!) but faster.
|
|
mexlinux
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 23:49
|
|
|
|
KDE4 icons are pngs cached from SVG that increases speed
|
|
|
Acctually, we neeeeeeed this. OSX look so slick comapred to Ubutu, and there is no doubt about it. It is just way cooler. So we need to make an analysis, where is OSX today. and how cam we beat it?
it should not be a discusssion about what we have today, but about where we can go. Thats the real power of brainstorm. No sorry, if we can get you, me and alllllllot of developers to crate some library that beats Quartz big time.
Take it like this: if OSX was fee, it would be on every sine second computer in the world. But it is not, so lets make freedom, Ubutnu, what we are looking forward to,
Mainly = we need a way to direct allt this energy for these projects into action. If we can do that, we win big time. GN
|
|
|
|
and yes, I am soooo drunk in China writing this, so take that in to concideration. Cheers! gn and thanks to all your improvements on my initial idae. Beat me up"
|
|
|
"Make Gnome vector grapics like KDE/OSX/Vista now!"
As you wish, master.
Puffff!!!
(and Gnome becomes vista, and the world explodes)
THE END.
Seriously... Each desktop has own its look and feel. If you don't like it you're free to change it, or use another desktop.
There are options: You can donwload a theme from gnome-look, or you can switch to KDE, or keep using OSX or Windows.
This idea is so pointless...
|
|
johan
wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 08:31
|
|
|
|
OSX look like crap, so NO THANK YOU! Vectorgraphics? Heck yeah! But please don't mention OSX, because that's NOT what I want Ubuntu to look like.
|
|
MighMoS
wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 18:04
|
|
|
Vector graphics are NOT what you want. What you want is high-resolution graphics.
If I create a vector graphic in 48x48, and then scale it up to 128x128, then it looks bad, because now all my borders are now 2.6 pixels wide. Ouch. Fuzziness.
If I do the opposite, say create some 128x128 SVGs and try to scale them down, it still looks bad, because now there's too much detail to represent in 48 pixels.
High resolution bitmapped graphics are the way to go.
|
|
|
I agree, compared to a OSX or Vista computer the graphics in Ubuntu do look bad. There should be no reason that bad graphics should hold Ubuntu back. When people see a Ubuntu desktop they don't exactly think "Wow! That's Pretty!".
Now I know, looks are irrelevant to a lot of people, like to most people on Brainstorm. But to the average user looks play a important role in whether or not they will use an OS. First impressions make a big difference.
|
|
bcs
wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 04:12
|
|
|
Speed and quality (fuzzyness) sure are issues, that's why it's not trivial to do.
But IMHO it's the right way. Include caching and manually touched up raster versions for standard sizes, and you get the best of both worlds.
Display sizes/resolutions vary vastly today, from 30+ inch HD displays to smartphones. Vector UI means all resolutions work out of the box, with manual enhancements possible. With raster UIs you'll have to wait until someone comes up with versions suitable for your setup, or live with the (often horrible) results of scaled raster graphics.
And it's not just eye-candy; the technology does not define the looks, everything can still look and feel the way it does today. But it would add some great possibilities:
- take screenshots at higher resolutions, e.g. for print publishing (A3 at 600dpi? no problem!)
- or just take vector screenshots! Completely resolution-indipendant, how nice is that! Done properly, they would be easily editable (even text!), a dream for creating mock-ups etc!
- desktop zooming: Need more screen real-estate? Just zoom out! (today you have to change resolution, sacrificing quality because of not running at your screens native resolution).
@MighMoS: All that depends on the scaling and anti-aliasing algorithms. You can scale up an SVG and have the outlines stay at 1px/dot/pica whatever width, and you can omit unnecessary detail from smaller renderings. The technology is there, it just needs to be used properly (but I know it's tricky, that's why I vote for hand made raster versions for standard sizes).
|
|
cheiron
wrote on the 10 Mar 08 at 07:50
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't just about everything already svg?
Icon themes have some pre-rendered sizes to be pixel-perfect, but usually include scalable versions to fill in the missing sizes. I see that the Tangerine iconset that comes with Ubuntu has svg icons. e.g. in /usr/share/icons/Tangerine there is a Scalable folder full of .svg icons
Controls and widgets in the GTK are rendered using Cairo, a vector graphics library, and are then rasterized for display.
Having developed some custom controls in Cairo, I have to say that it's pretty slick, and that it certainly makes this kind of work both fun and productive.
The only problem I see is that cairo is software rendered, and the glitz backend for opengl acceleration is somewhat new/in-development, and lacks the maturity and proper cross-language bindings to make it readily adoptable.
That said, there is some interesting experimentation going on with things like libclutter, which apparently integrates with cairo, and the things beingn experimented with by people like MacSlow.
What might be nice is the automatic scaling of the DPI based on the screen resolution. If a high resolution is detected, DPI is lowered to make everything bigger; if a low resolution is detected, DPI is increased, making everything fit into a smaller space. Because most (if not all) things *are* svg in gtk/gnome, using the DPI setting to control this kind of thing is actually quite effective
|
|
Ilya
wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 22:10
|
|
|
Actually, OS X icons are not in a vector graphics format but are simply very high-res PNG files.
SVG icons and widgets are significantly slower to render.
|
|
fragro
wrote on the 18 Mar 08 at 11:15
|
|
|
When you all so love OSX, BUY IT!
Ubuntu using SVG of course! They are prerendered and optionally avaiable for other than standard sizes. (so i used larger icons depending on screen size for my mediacenter app)
For fast vectorgraphic Widgets see Murrine! (There are some OSXish Murine Themes too)
Tip: try Alphacube-Color, Auroralooks and Oxygen-Gnome icon themes, looks good as OSX but isn't simple imitate!
|
|
|
|
I love this idea, it would really help ubuntu get noticed and used in the mainstream
|
|
nfinity
wrote on the 12 Apr 08 at 18:24
|
|
|
What's important nowdays:
The desktop on a 15.4 Laptop screen should look the same way, independently of the resolution the screen has (1024x768 or 1920*1200).
This is pretty important, because today, this is really not the case, and you can't work well with a 1920*1200 resolution on such a screen-size.
So it doesn't matter to me so much, if there are many png-icons like in OSX or if it is SVG, but the important part is that all the desktop scales!!!
|
|
|
Implementing this idea would make it easier to implement one of my proposed ideas: Resolution Independence.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/1557/
As far as performance, OSX's approach to icon rendering is this:
For each size...
1. Load the base vector graphic.
2. Resize it to the desired size.
3. Rasterize it.
4. Save it in a specific icon folder, like /usr/share/icons/22x22
|
|
|
Actually there's not just SVG icons out there, but also SVG themes. I am currently running compiz and am using a custom theme with Darkilouche controls and colors, Scalable-6nome borders, and Gartoon icons. In case you didn't notice this is a fully scalable setup - although Darkilouche (based on Gilouche) is only scalable in the sense that it generates nice-looking rasters. I'm using the Impact font in case anyone cares. The interface is pretty and smooth no matter what size font I use. Icons scale smoothly up and down to any size I've ever used. The issue with SVG icons becoming muddy at small resolutions is an issue of bad design, plain and simple. Some icons are more prone to it than others... And an icon should look good at a variety of sizes.
Anyway I have a fairly fast system so this all works plenty fast for me. Your mileage may vary. :)
|
|
|
yes yes yes, both hands for
i love 1 icon not 4-5 frame sizes for each resolution, and smooth scale, that's a future
+1
|
|
Andaril
wrote on the 19 Jun 08 at 20:44
|
|
|
|
PNG rulez)))
|
|
|
There are lots of people used to enjoy the fancyness becoming now with MacOS-X and Vista, and me not as well - for example, i'm much more into 'minimal' iconsets like this http://www.ubuntu-art.org/content/show.php/UbuntustudioCleaned?content=84325
For me, the versatility of .svg icons have were getting back those vectorial icons from SGI-Irix, for example - their simplicity recalls me so good memories, as well i think they were the most simple vector icons i even found - i think vector icon designers should bet on this! =) - http://art.gnome.org/themes/icon/1051
(For me, for example, the NeXT-Step and Rhapsody interfaces back on MacOS-X are very missing, and Apple did a huge stupidity on killing them... i think betting on fancyness is a huge mistake)
|
|
|
Whether vector or raster you'd still need to have more than one size per icon, so you might as well just add high quality large raster icons at say 128 or 256 pixels.
Small icons need less detail to keep the icon recognisable and clear, while very large 'dock' style icons need more detail in them in order to look decent.
Even if you did go entirely vector, you'd need vectors specifically designed for various size ranges (e.g. small 16px - 24px equivalent, medium 32px - 48px equivalent and large 64px - 128px and above) otherwise it would look pretty horrible.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 10 Sep 08 at 05:54
|
|
|
Either way, this might come as a shock, but OSX uses Raster graphics. Just Apple dictates developers should make their icons at different sizes up to 512x512 (maybe they are up to 1024x1024 now, dunno).
|
|
|
|
I had a look in KDE4 latest plasma-look and the rest. Awesome!! Ubuntu's default graphics need to be polished :-)
|
|
zukoff
wrote on the 16 Nov 08 at 02:29
|
|
|
|
OSX is real shit :) The only thing i want- to see good colours and good fonts that will not kill my eyes. Personally i don't use any of this effects.
|
|
|
Technical note.
Mac OS X doesn't use vector graphics for its icons. Vector graphics was used to produce the icons, yet all the icons are plain prerendered bitmaps (with alpha channel). Icons contains multiple resolutions and system has some very smart scaling to make it look as if icons were vector graphics.
|
|
dael99
wrote on the 9 Jan 09 at 01:52
|
|
|
Vector graphics uses a lot of CPU.
Bitmap images only copies themself to the RAM, so they let the system be quicly but heavyweight.
anyway, i don't think we should go searching to be Vista or OSX like.
we shoulkd focus on create a new UI.
|
andruk
(Idea reviewer)
wrote on the 15 Nov 09 at 01:55
|
|
|
"anyway, i don't think we should go searching to be Vista or OSX like.
we shoulkd focus on create a new UI. "
So, either we do what has been done for years, or we follow what the rest of the popular OSes out there are doing...how is either creating a new UI?
|
Post your comment
|
Blueprint svg-icons-by-default:
Ubuntuforums.org thread #703899
