Re: name, logo and HIG

Lars Boelman wrote:
> Because those names are non-descriptive, they are considered 'bad' names 
> by the Gnome Human Interface Guidelines (which I quickly scanned a few 
> weeks ago). The HIG also mention that the logo (in particular as an 
> icon) of the Sodipodi application does not provide any information about 
> what the application does. I can only say that though I like the 
> Sodipodi name and logo, the HIG are correct about both. Good thing the 
> HIG also mentions that when someone has learned the meaning of 
> something, the mentioned arguments are not valid anymore.

You are correct, of course. But at the same time, none of the other 
programs you mentioned follow convention either.

Let's look at icons:
- Gimp: Wilbur (A dog-looking thing)
- EoG: An eyeball with a wizard's hat
- Anjuta: a horse

And yet, two out of three of these programs are part of the core 2.6 
Gnome distribution.

So really, I think it's completely up to Lauris on this one. He named it 
the way he felt like naming it. He came up with a really cool Native 
American-style design for the icon. He aims for desktop-agnosticity. He 
need not follow the HIG any more than Gimp. It's still on my todo list 
to HIGify the application *behaviour* a little bit, but that's a 
separate issue. Behaviour is (a) more important, and (b) is expected to 
be more uniform.

Now, in Gentoo, the packager actually heeded the HIG, where Sodipodi is 
actually used as a 'bad example', and includes the icon that the HIG 
recommended for it instead of the squirrel.

On an unrelated note, whenever I think of the squirrel, I always thing 
"Yaskifo." I have no clue why.

--Pat


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click