Will Canonical change icons in 8.10?

[PryGuy]

Hey there! Will Canonical change icons in 8.10? Well, that's the question.

[rudihawk]

Hope so!

[chris4585]

I second this, the icons have been around a while..

[tom66]

You mean like the desktop/nautilus icons? I think so.

[chris4585]

Here's a nice concept https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Incoming/Intrepid/Intrepid_Ibex_Icons_-_Art_Team

I especially like these icons in the attachment

I mainly like the folders but i'm sure the rest will be good

[AndyCooll]

Probably only if GNOME does, since the standard icons aren't Ubuntu's as such but come from GNOME.

:cool:

[Rhubarb]

Ubuntu uses the human icon set by default, not gnome's tango icon set.

[joshdudeha]

I don't mind.
I can download new themes and icons from gnome-look.
Would be nice to have a fresh colour scheme though :|

[Nano Geek]

Here's a nice concept https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Incoming/Intrepid/Intrepid_Ibex_Icons_-_Art_Team

I especially like these icons in the attachment

I mainly like the folders but i'm sure the rest will be goodThose icons look great. I hope they use them.

[acelin]

Those icons look great. I hope they use them.

Art Team member here.

Update: No icons. The director seems quite opposed to any change.
be lucky to get a new wallpaper at our current level of organization.

[maybeway36]

I'm sure if they ever change the icons they'll leave the old ones in too.
A theme I've always liked is Clearlooks with the Mist icon theme and the Human window decorations. A nice cloud background really helps too with this one.

[Flyingjester]

well.. that's slightly depressing.

[K.Mandla]

If you can change the icons to whatever you like, what does it matter what the default is?

Edit: Sorry, this sounded kind of trollish. I guess what I meant was, if everyone is just going to change the desktop and appearance anyway, doesn't a default sort of disappear fairly soon? Ah, never mind. I give up trying to explain myself. :|

[acelin]

If you can change the icons to whatever you like, what does it matter what the default is?

Indeed it does. I guarantee if Linux looked as seamless and beautiful as OS X by default, more people would use it.

[K.Mandla]

Indeed it does. I guarantee if Linux looked as seamless and beautiful as OS X by default, more people would use it.
I really can't agree with you there, but you're free to think that.

[RiceMonster]

Indeed it does. I guarantee if Linux looked as seamless and beautiful as OS X by default, more people would use it.

Yeah but not everyone is concerned about Linux gaining market share, including me. I suppose it's a concern for Mark Shuttleworth, though.

[bobbybobington]

Well, Human could use an update. It is starting to look old and crusty like Mist. Imo, icons need to go in a more photo-realistic, professional direction, like Oxygen. It doesn't need to copy oxygen, it still needs to maintain its own identity.

[acelin]

Yeah but not everyone is concerned about Linux gaining market share, including me. I suppose it's a concern for Mark Shuttleworth, though.

Well indeed it is for Canonical. Bug #1 on Launchpad is "Microsoft has Majority Market Share"

Why should things be ugly and outdated when they dont have to be?

[acelin]

I really can't agree with you there, but you're free to think that.

This works for everything. Why do advertisers make sure things look nice? Why do artists design? Why are the nicest looking things the most expensive? Its because people like nice looking things.

[Nano Geek]

This works for everything. Why do advertisers make sure things look nice? Why do artists design? Why are the nicest looking things the most expensive? Its because people like nice looking things.And just having a fresh new look every once in a while is a nice change and doesn't hurt anything.

[PryGuy]

Indeed it does. I guarantee if Linux looked as seamless and beautiful as OS X by default, more people would use it.+1 here. Mark Shuttleworth thinks the same (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/63) I guess. We are talking about winning the battle here, and you can't win a battle without crowds. Crowds like eye candy things. Microsoft knows and uses it.

[Laterix]

Indeed it does. I guarantee if Linux looked as seamless and beautiful as OS X by default, more people would use it.

Of couse it matters what's the default look is! It's the first thing that new user sees. If it has amature look people will automatically think that the whole OS is just a toy.

[dracule]

The entire concept of looking pretty is what linux mint is based around. ]

People like pretty things.

They dont want to be bothered to go out and look for hours on gnome-look sorting through all the (rather) crappy themes to find 1 good one.

[tel93]

Of couse it matters what's the default look is! It's the first thing that new user sees. If it has amature look people will automatically think that the whole OS is just a toy.
That's exactly what I thought when I first saw OS X! I always thought that OS X had an ugly, counter-intuitive and inconsistent user interface.

[TheSlipstream]

That's exactly what I thought when I first saw OS X! I always thought that OS X had an ugly, counter-intuitive and inconsistent user interface.

And when you saw Ubuntu's default you saw an intelligently designed thing of beauty? People who dislike the OSX look are in the minority, and it's clearly popular and enjoyed, since I don't believe anyone would buy a Mac for any reason but looks. I hope not, at least.

[The Keeper]

If you can change the icons to whatever you like, what does it matter what the default is?

Edit: Sorry, this sounded kind of trollish. I guess what I meant was, if everyone is just going to change the desktop and appearance anyway, doesn't a default sort of disappear fairly soon? Ah, never mind. I give up trying to explain myself. :|

"If everyone is just going to change the appearance"? What makes you think everyone is just going to do that in the first place?

My parents and one of my sisters are using Ubuntu. They wouldn't know how to change how Ubuntu looks. Maybe they can change desktop wallpaper if they're lucky but that's about it. Personally I don't change default looks either. Why? Because Ubuntu doesn't ship with any decent looking ones, in the additional Gnome themes package there isn't a single one I like.

I'm just too lazy to browse through gnome-look.org to find a nice looking theme to replace the Human theme. It doesn't help in the slightest that in my opinion gnome-look.org is a confusing mess. If I want to look for a complete replacement for a Human theme from gnome-look.org, I wouldn't even know where to start from because of the silly categorization there. From the looks of it, I'd have to collect bits and pieces from here and there to have a complete Human theme replacement. Just not going to waste my time. There could be better sites out there but I don't know.

I've stuck with default themes in Windows XP, Vista and OS X as well. Looking for pleasant themes is bothersome and I rather use my time for something productive or fun.

So I'm all for better looking Ubuntu and I've been displeased with Ubuntu's progress in this area. There are many very nice looking concept themes in the Ubuntu wiki, I've been wondering what kind of uptight moron it takes to reject those themes. They aren't even included in an optional package in the repositories.

It's such a shame.

[madjr]

some opinions on new icons and looks:

http://www.breakitdownblog.com/ubuntu-810-intrepid-ibex-alpha-3-screenshots-and-new-theme-proposals/

[Krydahl]

I've spent some considerable time tinkering with my theme and I agree, it's a mess at the moment. Pick an icon set, learn how to install them. Make your theme use them. Pick controls. Figure out what metacity is then realise you're not using it you're using emerald. The list goes on.

I'm pretty happy with the result, but I can't help feeling that the process could be improved. A team packaging up a good range for people to choose from would be a good start.

[Joeb454]

My opinion on the matter:

If they're (they refers to the Art Team/Powers that be etc.) going to make a "new-human" theme to revamp the look of Ubuntu, they should also make a "new-human" icon-set.

It makes sense, you wouldn't want a brand new theme, with old icons...

Currently I'm using the icons from Futurelooks, I quite like them, though no doubt I'll change it soon

[tel93]

And when you saw Ubuntu's default you saw an intelligently designed thing of beauty? People who dislike the OSX look are in the minority, and it's clearly popular and enjoyed, since I don't believe anyone would buy a Mac for any reason but looks. I hope not, at least.
When I saw Ubuntu's default I saw an intelligently designed thing of beauty that looked a lot less childish than OS X.
I always thought people bought Macs because they were into S&M.

[mikewhatever]

Indeed it does. I guarantee if Linux looked as seamless and beautiful as OS X by default, more people would use it.

I have to disagree too. Observing the current state of OS market share, and following your logic, it may be concluded that Windows XP is the most beautiful looking OS on earth. Perhaps, to support your claim, you can try explaining why OSX has around 8% of the market share.


When I saw Ubuntu's default I saw an intelligently designed thing of beauty that looked a lot less childish than OS X.

+1. It also was something refreshingly different from Windows.

[PryGuy]

No, in fact, I think most people have to buy Windows because they have to buy it. ;) None of the OSes has such a vast selection of software and games written for it. I think there are two different reasons why people buy Macs and Windows: For Macs it is beauty, for Windows it's software. Windows is a huge architectural failure IMHO, but man, it has software... ;)

Yet I really do not know what 'beauty' is in terms of software. Yes, MacOSX launchpad (or how do they call it?) looks cool, but Windows/Linux taskbar is far more functional IMHO.

[kirsis]

Perhaps, to support your claim, you can try explaining why OSX has around 8% of the market share.


Because Macs are more expensive?
Because Windows has been a mainstream OS for a lot longer?
Because Apple's target audience is different (and a lot smaller) than Microsoft's?

I think the real question here is if OSX would have anywhere near that 8% if it wasnt designed so well.


Indeed it does. I guarantee if Linux looked as seamless and beautiful as OS X by default, more people would use it.

Very possible. If not use it more, they'd certainly enjoy it more. I for one feel absolutely no desire to play designer in my spare time, looking for themes and icon sets and what not.

It looks alright out of the box. I'd still use it if it looked **** but I'd be more satisfied if it looked more polished by default.

[PryGuy]

It looks alright out of the box. I'd still use it if it looked **** but I'd be more satisfied if it looked more polished by default.That's what I'm saying! Ubuntu made a great number of great steps in these 4 years. Ubuntu is the face of Linux now, so it's probably high time to make it's face more attractive (to the end users)?! Ubuntu is about WOW! to end users if you make a few mouse clicks in compizconfig-settings-manager with Compiz Fusion turned on, but Ubuntu's attractiveness is still not out of the box.

[Lexicon101]

I have to say.. Ubuntu can look amazing and awesome... with some tinkering. If Canonical wants Ubuntu only to appeal to tinkerers, not end-users.. It's fine the way it is. Personally, I think my Ubuntu looks awesome (also, different from yesterday...), but I don't think it did out of the box. I think it looked old, ugly, and I was almost dissuaded. I thought, well.. I don't want to look at this blocky, old OS every time I turn on my computer. Of course, later, I found how amazing it is... but the first time I booted up, it just wasn't fun to look at, and I couldn't do much else..
I don't know what direction Canonical wants to head with Ubuntu, but if it's a broader base of users, make it look nice, put a handy set of icons on the desktop for applications newbies are likely to use.. And show some skin. I don't know many people I would expect to figure this out easily. So figure it out for them and the comfort-lovers will thank you.

EDIT: "figure it out for them" makes me think of Microsoft and its inflexible "daddy knows best" approach. All I'm saying is, give them something nice to start out with.

[mikewhatever]

Before answering some of the above posts, I'd like to stress that the beauty of the default theme is subjective. There is no way Canonical can satisfy every single user, and imo, there is no point trying. They've done great job at looking distinctly different, thus drawing attention and curiosity. Does it matter if some think Ubuntu is ugly? I think not. Please see my replies as opinion exchange, not as counter arguments.


No, in fact, I think most people have to buy Windows because they have to buy it. ;) None of the OSes has such a vast selection of software and games written for it. I think there are two different reasons why people buy Macs and Windows: For Macs it is beauty, for Windows it's software. Windows is a huge architectural failure IMHO, but man, it has software... ;)

Don't you think this is rather shallow? What about security or software/hardware integration? I think people buy PC with Windows because they don't think about an OS when doing it. You get a computer, it works, (what's an OS?), who cares about the default theme.



Because Macs are more expensive?
Because Windows has been a mainstream OS for a lot longer?
Because Apple's target audience is different (and a lot smaller) than Microsoft's?

Doesn't it imply that looks are not so important after all? I think users want functionalities first and design and appearance are secondary as long as products are not particularly repulsive. Be as it may, it's obvious that Ubuntu's themes did not prevent it from becoming the most popular linux distro.




I don't know what direction Canonical wants to head with Ubuntu, but if it's a broader base of users, make it look nice, put a handy set of icons on the desktop for applications newbies are likely to use..

God forbid! This was always one of the first things I removed from Windows desktop. I think Ubuntu is almost as easy to use as it gets, provided it runs on supported hardware, and a user is open to learning something different. The WOW factor would only interfere and distract, rather then help.

[ZarathustraDK]

2 major contributors to Apples (and Microsofts) success over Ubuntus :

1. They can advertise.If Ubuntu could put the same kind of dollar into making fancy stands at every Tech-shop as Apple can and advertise in fancy lifestyle magazines, then...

2. Joe Smoes generally think "Quality costs money, better quality, then I have to pay more. *fallacy being comitted* Reversely that must mean that I should avoid GPL-stuff 'cos it's free*.

Yeah, money and ignorance, those are the sinners. I, like a little kid throwing a tantrum, think it's absurdly unfair that those two influences dominate the marketplace in a world which should be based squarely on products competing on their individual merits, and not an opaque, ****-yellow cloud of irrelevance and misdirection which does nothing else than hinder technological progress.

I can't blame Apple for creating a brand of their own with their particular design-line (I for one can't stand it, I think it's ugly), but there are limits to how much one can contribute to design, especially when you pit your product against something as customizable as Linux.

[kirsis]

The WOW factor would only interfere and distract, rather then help.


I agree. The WOW factor is a shallow attraction. That's why I dislike spinning cubes and such.

However, you should not equate an elegant, well designed look with a look that's designed to WOW people. Add a few rounded corners here and there, make some color gradients more subtle, have a well designed UI font, have an attractive color palette, be consistent (very important) from app to app... that's the sort of thing that makes a system pleasant and attractive to me.



Doesn't it imply that looks are not so important after all? I think users want functionalities first and design and appearance are secondary as long as products are not particularly repulsive. Be as it may, it's obvious that Ubuntu's themes did not prevent it from becoming the most popular linux distro.


No, it does not imply that looks are not important. How big would their market share be without their distinctive appearance? They're more expensive than ordinary computers with other OSes. They get the job done but they don't get the job done any better than computers with other OSes (and sometimes they don't get the job done at all, due to a smaller number of available applications. Though that's probably a fringe scenario). Yet they still see their market share increasing and churn out super expensive laptops without basic features people take for granted (see Macbook Air).

And don't forget that among certain crowds, it's a status/style symbol. Ever noticed how many students use Apple computers? Wouldn't a student be better off getting a cheaper Linux/Windows laptop if all they cared for was getting things done? Students need all the money they can get for booze, after all :)

The 'Macs are stylish' message was even a big part in their Macs vs PC ads.

Their UI look + design is definitely a big factor in their success.

I think that for an OS to be successful, it needs a mixture of functionality and appearance. When a certain level of functionality is reached, the look and feel of the system becomes more important. If for no other reason, then because people have more time to pay attention to it, as they're not busy figuring how to get stuff done.