Eyecandy forum?

[shining]

Vote!

[deadlydeathcone]

No, because we have one!

Art & Design (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

[shining]

Some look stuff are specific to edgy.
Like all the "back to dapper artwork sucks" threads, and all the "beryl crash" threads. :)

[Redcard]

Well, in 12 days, edgy is the release :) So..

Create a forum for just 12 days?

[PriceChild]

*moves to Forum & Feedback*

I've voted yes, i would like to see all the Beryl problems for one being shifted to their own section... it is a HUGE topic afterall... or at least was, i think the general opinion is that it is easier in Edgy.

However i'm not so sure with adding it to the artwork forum...

[John.Michael.Kane]

Having a sub forum like this would be based on it being maintained having all thread starters maintaining their respective posts.

Also keep in mind that projects like xgl/aiglx/Beryl/VannilaCompiz should still be considered under heavy development,and will incur changes.

Those who feel there should be a sub forum for this need to have the engergy to maintain their info. If not they should understand their thread could face deletion.

PriceChild you could make a EyeCandy subforum,and place all known working eyecandy guides/howto' in it. Leaving the note that future threads made must be maintain be the OP.

[ubuntu-geek]

We will not be making a seperate section for edgy artwork. We have a Art & Design forum that posts can go into.

[PriceChild]

PriceChild you could make a EyeCandy subforum,and place all known working eyecandy guides/howto' in it. Leaving the note that future threads made must be maintain be the OP.In an attempt to combat this i'm trying to collate many guides onto the USDF. However to be polite i'm trying to receive consent from all authors which takes time :)

Pricey

[ewl1217]

I'm fed up with all the talk about Beryl, Compiz, and XGL. I feel like all the talk about them is clogging up the forums. Could we PLEASE have a separate forum for these? They all seem to be popular, but the constant begging for help is just getting in the way of other issues. Not to mention that these are all third-party programs still under development, and as such can cause their own set of problems. Any feedback is welcomed.

On another note, would it be possible to further define what is allowed on Absolute Beginner Talk? It seems like many threads there are concerned with fairly specific or advanced issues that would be better placed in other forums.

[PriceChild]

I'm personally moving Compiz/Beryl/Xgl threads to General Help as I see them.

[ewl1217]

Well, thanks for the reply. I guess that might be the best for now, but I feel like it will eventually need to be a separate forum. Just with it being in constant development, unstable, and not officially supported...

[po0f]

ewl1217,

Beryl does have its own forum, here (http://forum.beryl-project.org/).

[EDIT]

Ok, I just realized that you weren't asking for the separate forum for your own support issues. Yes, they do get in the way.

[PriceChild]

I had asked for a separate forum a few weeks back. IMHO The official beryl forums just couldn't handle, nor attract the amount of support requests that Beryl brings.

However the admin decision was that there would be no new subforum in the near future.

[ewl1217]

Okay, it's nice to know what's going on and that I'm not the only one thinking this way...

[kko1]

Hello.

I believe this may have been suggested earlier, but studying the last month of Forum Feedback I didn't see it discussed. Hence my suggestion, which is this:

Is it possible to divide the "Eyecandy" -related posts from "Desktop environments" into a separate "Eyecandy" -forum?

This would contain topics pertaining to:

Beryl
Compiz, XGL
etc. etc., I don't really know what all has to do with 3D desktop
plus themes, looks, background images
and maybe SuperKaramba -type desktop applets


This could bring about what could, in my opinion, be a useful divide between "looks-oriented" and "functions-oriented" (for lack of a better word) desktop issues and questions, and bring down the message count per forum to more reasonable levels.

In other words, this would let those who want a 3D desktop and are inclined to play around with different looks etc. to have a dedicated forum for their questions, and on the other hand it would allow those whose main concern on a desktop is functionality and desktop applications to more easily find the relevant threads without having to sift through a number of eyecandy-topics.

The why:
I find that the two "general" forums would be most likely for a lot of my interests, i.e. "Desktop environments" and "General help", but the volume in these forums seems huge. I'm sure also others have noticed the increasing amount of messages. (Are there any statistics available, by the way, e.g. messages per forum per week?)

kko1

PS. I'm not sure of the real usability of the "General help" -forum either, if it is used as a catch-all category. (E.g. questions that have to do with hardware get asked there, IIRC.) But I'm not going to try to suggest anything with regard to that, since I'm not really sure if it's even possible to have all questions asked in a more appropriately (and more narrowly) titled forum.

[kko1]

Around 40 views - not much. No replies. :-k

Does anyone see a need for what I suggested? Did I express myself less than clearly? What do you think about an Eyecandy -forum?

kko1

[ubuntu-geek]

add it to the FC agenda https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ForumCouncilAgenda and we can discuss it there.

[kko1]

Hello.

Thank you for that suggestion. However, I'm afraid I can't commit to showing up in the meeting (I'm also not much of an irc person), so I'll respect the policy of not putting the proposal on the agenda in this case.

If you - or any other staff member, for that matter - find any merit in this idea, please do discuss it among yourselves. Thanks, in any case, for giving it some consideration.

kko1

[kko1]

This looks like I'm mostly talking to myself here :-k , though I by no means wish to underrate the value of ubuntu-geek's guardedly positive response. ;-)

I decided to lift this - once - back to the top page, because I still think this idea could be useful, and that it also could benefit from some further input. With the "Desktop" forum nearing 50 000 threads, ideas to better direct questions to appropriate narrower themes would be welcome, and I feel that this suggestion could work well for that purpose.

In sum, I think it would be relatively easy for forum users to conceptually distinguish between "Eyecandy" topics and "Desktop applications/functionality" (for lack of a better term) topics, and to mostly intuitively direct their questions to the right forum, if this divide was made. (At least I hope this would be the case for the majority, even if not all, seeing as e.g. lots of installation questions do get asked in the "General help" and some "Multimedia" (e.g. TV/video) questions in "Desktop environments".)

In hopes that this idea will turn out useful for the forum community.

kko1

[Artificial Intelligence]

Maybe you could find someone who'll (it could be anyone) to take your case to the council.


best regards
A.I. Dude

[PriceChild]

I've merged three of these threads into one and here is the result:

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=223

[kko1]

I've merged three of these threads into one and here is the result:

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=223

Nice, I'm glad to see this implemented! :-) Thanks, staff.


I'd like to continue the discussion about that forum's content, and - in particular - the description. It currently reads:
"This section is for all your compositing needs. This includes Beryl, Compiz, xcompmgr, and other fancy apps which take advantage of compositing managers such as kiba-dock and avant window decorator"

...and the forum title is "Desktop Effects & Customization". I think the title is very good, and in my opinion the mention of customization is spot on! This is an intuitive (to me, at least) indicator of what the forum is all about.


Now, in my opinion, it would be clearer if the description also included other sorts of "customization" besides "compositing". I'm thinking of the following, at least:
- Desktop "looks": theming and wallpapers.
- Desktop "widgets": SuperKaramba for KDE, what other alternatives there are for other DE's.


So, the description could continue with the following:
"...avant window decorator. This is also the right forum for desktop theming, wallpapers, and desktop widgets such as SuperKaramba."


kko1

[PriceChild]

I think the extra bit you are talking about would best be suited in "Desktop Environments"

[kko1]

I think the extra bit you are talking about would best be suited in "Desktop Environments"

I tend to disagree. My reasoning:
- Lots of the theming is done to obtain a certain "look", or "feel", to the desktop. Examples include for instance "a Mac Os X -like look", "a customized toolbar", and "cool & useful widgets" (also familiar from Macs).
- The different themes have to do with exactly "customizing" the (look of the) desktop, and a certain amount of "Eyecandy", i.e. much the same reasons I believe Beryl & co. are popular.
- Even if the widgets add some useful functionality, like showing the weather forecast on your desktop, I think much of the point is that it also looks nice.

Finally, what I think are two of the most compelling reasons, from a forums administrative point of view:
- As I wrote earlier, I think collecting all of the desktop "looks and feels" customization -related topics in one forum would be most intuitive for the users, and this could be reinforced with the forum description.
- Secondly, with the amount of threads in "Desktop Environments" being as large as it is, focusing on applications and functionality in one and looks and customizations in the other would help keep post counts in both forums at more reasonable levels, helping the reader (and posters) find what they want.*

*) "Helping the reader find what they want" implies that I think the "audience" for Beryl on one hand and for desktop themes and widgets on the other hand would be much the same, i.e. have these combined interests. (Hmm, this is actually what I said above about the common reasons for why Beryl & co. are popular, but re-phrased.)


That's all, but I hope you give it a thought and find my argument convincing enough. ;-)

kko1

[PriceChild]

Ok then I think we should draw a simple line...

Those that require the DM in order to be used, e.g. wallpapers, belong in Desktop Environments. Those that require some form of compositing or are possible using a compositing manager, e.g. different wallpapers per workspace in GNOME, go into Desktop Effects.

[kko1]

Ok then I think we should draw a simple line...

...for some values of "simple". ;-)

I'll try to explain below why I feel that drawing the line like you suggest may not be the best option.

Those that require the DM in order to be used, e.g. wallpapers, belong in Desktop Environments. Those that require some form of compositing or are possible using a compositing manager, e.g. different wallpapers per workspace in GNOME, go into Desktop Effects.

...whereas different wallpapers per workspace in KDE are a built-in feature (no compositing needed), and therefore go to Desktop Environments? That is a distinction that comes from the technology used in the implementation, and not from the intended effect, which in this case would be "having a nice-looking alternating desktop background".

(DM? Or WM as in "window manager"? Or "DE" as in Desktop Environment? I don't think the exact definition makes much difference though, just curious if I'm missing something here.)


I am not intimate with compositing managers, so please excuse if something I say doesn't make complete sense to you. Nevertheless, I don't think "compositing" alone should determine what goes where. As I understand it, it's only a technique / technology of implementing something that is desired - I'll continue to call this something "eyecandy", for lack of a better word.

What I forgot to say in my earlier post is that drawing the line based on technologies used is a moving target, and - as illustrated by the example above - still not always easy to define. (I'm sure there are numerous other equally valid examples.) If you (and other forum staff) want to operate with this moving target, that is fair enough. It's not my decision to make.

However if, instead, the line is drawn based on the intended effect, "the eyecandy", the forum content doesn't depend on the technology used to implement it - whether it be a built-in feature of the DE (like themeable icons, window decorations etc), or something new and fancy (like compositing), which may in time become a standard, built-in feature in a DE. ( <- The essence of the technology-based definition being "a moving target". )


I'm not saying that using the "function-based" (for lack of a better word) definition instead of the "technology-based" distinction is always simple. I'm sure there are corner case topics with both approaches. All I'm saying is that it does make sense, it has in my opinion some advantages over the other alternative, and it isn't as much a moving target.


To give a couple examples of the "function-based" divide:
- If your question is about "why do my KOffice fonts look weird", "why does my mouse move so slowly", or "I'm having trouble with Firefox", go to Desktop Environments.
- If your question is about "how can I get rounded window borders", "I'm having trouble with pseudo-transparent Konsole (no compositing)", "how can I change the menu icon to a custom one", or "can I view the cube from the inside", post in Desktop Effects and Customization.


kko1