#archlinux gets $600K in funding (from the usual German foundation, of course), #Firefox drops Do Not Track and #Flathub is being separated from the #GNOME foundation into its own entity: time for the #linux and #OpenSource News video!
#archlinux gets $600K in funding (from the usual German foundation, of course), #Firefox drops Do Not Track and #Flathub is being separated from the #GNOME foundation into its own entity: time for the #linux and #OpenSource News video!
@[email protected] I thought your rant about GNOME favoritism in icon guidelines was weird. Your complaint about icons was especially strange given that skeuomorphism is GNOME’s entire look; KDE actually tends to have a more symbolic style. But they both agree on clarity and minimalism without looking bland or flat.
The guidelines also use good/bad examples from both ecosystems.
I do agree with the broad point that they should be separate but there’s no evidence of discrimination IMO.
@thelinuxEXP Appstream metadata is also not a new thing that is specific to Flathub. It’s a freedesktop standard that’s been around for a while.
@thelinuxEXP Is there a specific incident you’re referring to? Or just the vibe?
@clairie I didn’t “rant” about it…
Look it up, it’s well documented. Basically, flathub guidelines meant that something like Okular and many other apps from KDE (and other desktops) could never be featured, because their icons are too “realistic”.
Gnome icons aren’t skeuomorphic at all, they’re flat, simple colored, and don’t look real at all, compared to breeze app icons.
As an example, even people working on Flathub remarked that thyis was an issue: https://discourse.flathub.org/t/app-developer-feedback-about-quality-guidelines/8037
@[email protected] I think Okular was unfairly judged and they agreed in that post, but I’d contend that it doesn’t fit Breeze’s current icon guides, which I’d speculate is why it was “not contemporary”.
If you want to say Flathub is biased against old apps, I’d agree but that punishes in all directions, including apps like GIMP.
But that’s all just to be featured in the banner. If you want to stubbornly keep an old style, that’s fine; but you’re not owed the spotlight over newer apps.
@thelinuxEXP I think generally the issue for KDE apps is that they’re being migrated to Flathub after they’ve been well-established whereas GNOME apps tend to be built with Flathub guidelines specifically in mind.
I’m all for making that migration easier and encouraging more KDE apps. But I think that Flathub is appealing in large part because of its uniformity. And I think featured apps should be held to a high standard for presentation because that’s the highest endorsement Flathub can give.
@clairie Oh I do want guidelines and standards, but the guidelines on icons are too much
@[email protected] Can you please give an example of a guideline you disagree with? I feel they’re generally agreeable design guidelines. Follow your community style guides and ensure it fits within the borders so your icon renders properly and pretty.
https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/metainfo-guidelines/quality-guidelines/#app-icon
@[email protected] Not too much or too little detail in the icon (subjective and shouldn’t be up to flathub), no baked in shadows in icons, « in line with contemporary styles », not allowing explained screenshots with text or information around the app window (even Apple allows this)… Forcing screenshots to have rounded corners as well?
I totally want more streamlining, but this is de facto excluding so many current apps that would have to change their icon just to be on flathub…
@[email protected] Oh yeah, and I was just reporting on the fact that multiple developers complained about this. I don’t have strong feelings on the issue personally, it’s just a banner.
I just think it’s weird to enforce icons styles in the App Store for « Linux ». Not up to them to say what’s good or not :)
@[email protected] You’re right it is just the banner, and that’s why I didn’t agree the guides were actively discriminatory. Platforms want to make good first impression, and it’s not unusual to have higher standards for showcases than to get the app on the store to begin with.
One thing I want is more avenues to reward good apps that may not fit the guidelines perfectly. Like visibility rounds or a users’ choice spot.
I hope that makes sense. I’m sorry for being rude in my initial post.
@[email protected] No worries ! I don’t even think they were actively discriminatory either, it’s just a result of « Gnome devs wrote guidelines » resulting in inherently biased stuff.
Nothing harmful, and they even asked devs for feedback, so it’s all good !