[19:30] <bert_> hi, can someone tell me if I'm free to use the ubuntu artwork (like orange arrows) ?
[19:36] <troy_s> bert_: Find the license
[19:37] <troy_s> bert_: I would think that at a bare minimum, the licence would be CC by SA
[19:37] <troy_s> bert_: Or better.
[19:37] <troy_s> bert_: Does that help you?
[19:37] <troy_s> bert_: There are only particular 'closed' mentality clauses on things that involve the actual Ubuntu logo or the Ubuntu text.
[19:37] <bert_> kind of, well I just want to use the left and right pointing arrows that come by default in ubuntu (nautilus)
[19:38] <bert_> so I can just use those if I want ?
[19:39] <troy_s> bert_: As I said
[19:39] <bert_> okey, thanks troy_s
[19:40] <troy_s> bert_: You will need to know for certain, and that means
[19:40] <troy_s> bert_: tracking down the license.
[19:40] <troy_s> bert_: I say this because in SOME instances, the license is missing for parts of the artwork and we need to know about it.
[19:40] <bert_> well, as it is in ubuntu main I think it should be under a OS license
[19:40] <troy_s> bert_: So you can not only help yourself, but you can help the community at large.
[19:40] <troy_s> bert_: You _think_... :) - the reality is that some mistakes might be in there.
[19:41] <troy_s> bert_: I believe the arrows in question fall under the jurisdiction of the Human icon set
[19:41] <troy_s> bert_: And that license should be easy to find.
[19:41] <bert_> yeah, I'm going to check it now
[19:41] <troy_s> bert_: Thanks.
[19:42] <troy_s> bert_: http://packages.debian.org/sid/x11/human-icon-theme
[19:42] <troy_s> bert_: States 'non-free' which means it has either 1) odd clauses or 2) isn't a Debian approved licence or both.
[19:43] <troy_s> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/h/human-icon-theme/human-icon-theme_0.24.debian-1/human-icon-theme.copyright
[19:43] <troy_s> bert_: The Human Icon Theme is licensed under the Creative Commons Legal Code
[19:43] <troy_s> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5
[19:43] <troy_s> ;)
[19:44] <troy_s> bert_: That assumes that the two icons you wish to use are covered in that repository package.
[19:44] <bert_> damn, I was trying to find that :P
[19:45] <bert_> so that means that I have to place the names of the makers somewhere, right ?
[19:45] <thorwil> attribution of course means that you have to print some text referinbg to the origin right on top of the arrows! ;)
[19:46] <bert_> lol :P
[19:46] <thorwil> in theory, those who use attribution should define how it should be done themselves
[19:47] <thorwil> in practice, i havn't seen anyone doing it. i don't do it myself
[19:47] <troy_s> thorwil: Actually, it is much like the GPL
[19:47] <troy_s> thorwil: You must include the license with the file etc., etc.,
[19:47] <thorwil> bert_: where do you want to use those arrows?
[19:48] <troy_s> thorwil: I believe the commons site has a 'bare minimum' guideline.
[19:48] <bert_> but if I put something in the meta data of my webpage like "arrows from the human icon theme, more info on" and then a link to the copyright thing
[19:48] <troy_s> bert_: Check the license itself.
[19:48] <bert_> troy_s, I'm not a native english speaker so I don't fully understand the license
[19:49] <troy_s> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions
[19:49] <troy_s> bert_: If you can chat here, you should be able to understand their FAQ>
[19:49] <bert_> okey
[19:49] <bert_> thx troy_s
[19:51] <troy_s> bert_: If you can't, please ask someone to help you.  Anyone around in here will probably at least _try_.
[19:52] <bert_> yeah, I'm reading the faq now and it's a lot clearer then the license text itself
[19:53] <thorwil> to me, lawyer speak in english is only slightly harder to read than in my native language :)
[19:53] <troy_s> bert_: the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the Uniform Resource Identifier for the work if specified by the author and/or licensor.
[19:53] <troy_s> bert_: Yes... as the FAQ states -- there are 3 parts -- the legal one isn't expected to be understood by everyone
[19:53] <thorwil> point 2 is what i was referring to
[19:54] <troy_s> thorwil: Whatever manner specified (if it is)
[19:54] <troy_s> thorwil: Relatively clear.  Generally, that indicates that the names be intact in the license.  Although, if someone is angry with how you use their work, they can request to be removed from that acknowledgement.
[19:54] <troy_s> thorwil: As is assured under the license.
[19:55] <bert_> so if I put in meta data on a webpage that the arrows are from the human icon theme, which is copyright by canonical (copy past fromt he debian stuff) and quote the upstream authors it's okey ?
[19:55] <troy_s> bert_: You need to only worry about the license
[19:55] <troy_s> bert_: And all that it implies
[19:55] <troy_s> bert_: That clause will help, but bear in mind the following sentence:
[19:55] <troy_s> You also need to provide the Uniform Resource Locator for the Creative Commons license that applies to the work, together with each copy of the work that you make available.
[19:56] <troy_s> bert_: Read the section " How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?"
[19:56] <troy_s> bert_: Until you at least understand the bare minimum that the license requires.  Then (as said earlier in the document) look at the particular license -- in this case I believe it is CC by SA 2.5.
[19:57] <thorwil> bert_: doing all this properly isn't worth it for 2 arrows, i'd say
[19:57] <thorwil> which can be taken 2 ways :)
[19:57] <bert_> yeah I know it's stupid
[19:57] <bert_> but I think licensing is important
[19:57] <bert_> it's what gives us the freedom to share in the open source world
[19:57] <thorwil> it is
[19:58] <troy_s> bert_: It is... and bear in mind
[19:58] <troy_s> bert_: That you only need to learn how to do something once.
[19:58] <troy_s> bert_: I think what you are doing is extremely worthwhile.
[19:58] <troy_s> bert_: And it will help 1) you _now_ 2) others in the future if you help them 3) others who have licenced work that you might see being used incorrectly etc.
[19:59] <troy_s> bert_: It is a far far far cry from stupid.
[20:00] <troy_s> The number of people who use or fail to understand licenses is massive.  Learning how the license works and how to properly cite it is ... helluva important.  Ask any MOTU about crappy applications of license terms and you might get an earful.
[20:00] <bert_> so if I understand this paragraph right I have to say that the human icon theme is licensed under the Creative Common Legal Code Attrubution-ShareAlike 2.5, copyright by canonical Ltd., made by -quote the names-
[20:01] <bert_> (that's kind of what the FAQ says
[20:01] <bert_> )
[20:01] <troy_s> bert_: I would think that something along those lines, with a link to the actual license (see follow up sentence) would suffice.
[20:01] <troy_s> bert_: And it specifically mentions metadata usage.
[20:02] <bert_> I don't get that last phrase ?
[20:03] <troy_s> bert_: Keep intact the license (1), (2) credit the author in the manner they request, (3) maintain title, (4) the URI of the work and or licensor, and the follow up sentence (5) URI to the Creative commons license itself.
[20:03] <troy_s> bert_: So if you want to bury it in the metadata, that appears fine.
[20:03] <bert_> okey
[20:04] <bert_> so I just put all of that in metadata and I'm fine then
[20:04] <troy_s> bert_: Be aware of the 'share alike' clause
[20:04] <bert_> yeah, that's very important indeed
[20:04] <troy_s> bert_: It is rather like the GPL
[20:04] <troy_s> bert_: That basically means that your 'body of work' becomes share alike, IIRC.
[20:04] <bert_> thanks troy_sand thorwil
[20:04] <troy_s> bert_: No problem bert_ ... share the knowledge.
[20:05] <bert_> well, the GPL is easier, because I really know that license very well
[20:05] <thorwil> troy_s: doesn't that only apply if he modifies the material?
[20:05] <bert_> (atleast version 2)
[20:05] <troy_s> thorwil: I believe the "ShareAlike" (and only the share alike) pulls you into a share alike clause.
[20:05] <troy_s> thorwil: Hence the extra 'share alike' license... it is more or less a GPLesque license.
[20:06] <bert_> indeed, lol :p
[20:06] <bert_> why isn't everything just licensed under the GPL :P
[20:06] <thorwil> troy_s: i mean to remember that sharealike deals with derivatives and keeping them open
[20:06] <thorwil> because the GPL was made for code
[20:06] <troy_s> thorwil: Wow.  Here is an interesting question...
[20:06] <troy_s> thorwil: You just read the list post?
[20:07] <thorwil> troy_s: eh, which one?
[20:07] <troy_s> thorwil: If someone works in Photoshop or another proprietary format, I wonder if providing the source actually abides by licensing.
[20:07] <thorwil> ah, that one
[20:07] <troy_s> thorwil: As technically, providing the source in a proprietary format is rather... useless really.
[20:07] <troy_s> thorwil: Not really an issue in code, but heading into the new art and design frontier it seems relevant.
[20:07] <bert_> yeah, kind of
[20:08] <thorwil> i thought by myself: yuck, photoshop. then i wondered if i'm a zealot now ;)
[20:08] <bert_> don't you guys do artwork in the gimp ?
[20:08] <bert_> of inkscape ?
[20:08] <troy_s> thorwil: Yep you are.
[20:08] <troy_s> bert_: I am a huge fan of inkscape
[20:08] <thorwil> inkscape is enlightened!
[20:08] <troy_s> bert_: I believe that the future of raster imaging lie in 1) nodal compositing and 2) vectors
[20:08] <bert_> vectors are cool :p
[20:08] <troy_s> bert_: There are some _amazing_ examples of work out there done entirely using vectors -- some might trick you into thinking that they were developed in a raster program.
[20:09] <bert_> I hope the future lies in formates like SVG
[20:09] <bert_> that would make life a lot easier
[20:09] <troy_s> bert_: There is a _lot_ of upside to traditional work done in vector.
[20:10] <troy_s> bert_: The fact that you can generally go in and change a brushstroke, a tonal range, etc., has massive upside.
[20:10] <thorwil> SVG has its limitations
[20:10] <thorwil> like no way to express gradient meshes directly
[20:10] <bert_> thorwil: yeah that's thru, that's why I say formates like SVG
[20:11] <bert_> it's just that it makes resizing so easy
[20:11] <thorwil> i have been playing with synfig. there you can create a gradient that follows a path. and the width of the gradient depends on the stroke width of siad path. that's so wicked and wouldn't fit into SVG
[20:12] <bert_> throrwil: that would make a huge SVG :P
[20:12] <troy_s> thorwil: There is a gradient mesh roadmap in place I believe.
[20:12] <troy_s> thorwil: That is SVG compliant.
[20:12] <thorwil> troy_s: there has been some brainstorming how it could be done, yes
[20:12] <troy_s> thorwil: That said, there is nothing wrong with drawing it.
[20:13] <bert_> I learned some SVG image creation (the code) back in september, I wanted to use it for stats but IE didn't support it so they didn't want me to use it...
[20:13] <bert_> but it has limitations
[20:13] <bert_> and the file size can grow if you use things like gradients
[20:13] <thorwil> SVGs compress very well
[20:14] <thorwil> and aren't SVGZs part of the spec?
[20:14] <troy_s> thorwil: Not to mention that they work amazingly well in version control systems as they are xml files.
[20:15] <bert_> yeah, it's text, so it compresses very easy
[20:15] <thorwil> and here i am, still using *01.xxx, *02.xxx :)
[20:16] <bert_> lol :p
[20:18] <bert_> say, learning the gimp or inkscape (but learning as in "I can use this program properly and know how to do prety most every usefull tool) ?
[20:18] <bert_> it that hard ?
[20:19] <troy_s> bert_: Yes.  Inkscape is damn hard to 'learn' as there are almost always new things added weekely in subtle and not so subtle ways.
[20:19] <thorwil> yes. about 18 hard
[20:19] <troy_s> bert_: It is rather evolutionary... if you run with an SVN version, you just sort of go 'Ok ... that's different'.  Not to mention that the actual program does a lot more than what is documented.
[20:19] <bert_> lol
[20:20] <bert_> and the gimp ?
[20:20] <troy_s> bert_: Sometimes a feature is a hidden keystroke because it is still in development, or it was just something added that came in under the radar.
[20:20] <bert_> or is inkscape just so much better that we don't have to talk about the gimp :P
[20:20] <thorwil> no
[20:20] <thorwil> depends on the task
[20:20] <troy_s> bert_: Depends.  If you want to do any sort of high end photo manipulation, I would avoid the GIMP and go with Blender.
[20:20] <bert_> blender ?
[20:21] <troy_s> http://blender.org
[20:21] <thorwil> only if you like noodles
[20:21] <bert_> ow you don't mean blender 3D :P
[20:21] <troy_s> bert_: It is about the only tool that will let you adjust raw files properly.
[20:21] <troy_s> bert_: And nodal compositing has been the defacto professional standard in high end imaging for a long long time.
[20:21] <thorwil> oh, that's new to me
[20:21] <bert_> can you edit pictures in blender 3D ?
[20:22] <thorwil> yes
[20:22] <troy_s> bert_: Yes.  Depends on what you mean by 'edit' of course.
[20:22] <bert_> lol
[20:22] <troy_s> bert_: You can do full compositing, etc.  There are a few lower level paint functions as well.
[20:23] <thorwil> bert_: i think after an investment of only 4 or 5 hours, you might have found out where and how to edit pictures in it :)
[20:23] <bert_> I tried to learn 3D moddeling with blender 2 years ago I think, but it was quite hard, to many key combinations and buttons :P
[20:23] <troy_s> bert_: Now that Cinepaint is more or less off the map, Blender is the only resource available for >8bpc imaging.
[20:23] <troy_s> bert_: You obviously haven't been near Maya or Nuke or Shake :)
[20:24] <thorwil> troy_s: cinepaint is off the map?
[20:24] <troy_s> bert_: Let's face it -- all things are complicated if you expect power... even Inkscape is a far cry from 'simple' really.
[20:24] <troy_s> thorwil: Yes.
[20:24] <bert_> maya is properietary and comercial right
[20:24] <troy_s> thorwil: I believe it is not in 8.04 for example.
[20:24] <troy_s> bert_: Yes.
[20:24] <troy_s> bert_: The visual effects industry, in a roundabout way, have turned into great supporters of open standards
[20:25] <bert_> yeah, but is inkscape as complicated as the blender interface ?
[20:25] <thorwil> no
[20:25] <thorwil> not even close
[20:25] <troy_s> bert_: Because they, unlike most people who preach Photoshop etc., realize that particular applications server particular roles in their workflow.
[20:25] <troy_s> bert_: No.  But getting the full horsepower out of Inkscape is at least as involved with the learning curve.
[20:25] <thorwil> bert_: i think inkscape has a very low barrier to entry
[20:25] <bert_> well, photoshop is evil :P
[20:26] <troy_s> bert_: not really evil, but the people who are responsible for the huge budget productions can't rely on a single tool.  It just won't deliver.
[20:26] <troy_s> bert_: Hence the rather ubiquitous nature of OpenEXR
[20:26] <troy_s> bert_: Every single professional app on the map needs to support that format or provide a way to get to and from it.
[20:26] <bert_> well, photoshop is just so pushed into people, you can't go around it
[20:27] <bert_> it's everywhere
[20:27] <thorwil> pushed?
[20:27] <bert_> and it's always very expensive (and also pirated)
[20:27] <troy_s> bert_: Most of the mainstream productions houses out there have a good deal of in house proprietary apps.
[20:27] <bert_> yeah, if you speak about artwork people seem to automatically think "photoshop"
[20:27] <troy_s> bert_: Hell... extend that to the video game industry as well... in-house tools are all over.
[20:27] <thorwil> i was under the impression that every kid, grandma and the dog have a copy of it to brigehtn some holiday pictures. illegal copy in most cases, of course
[20:27] <troy_s> bert_: Photoshop does what it does amazingly well.
[20:28] <troy_s> bert_: But there are zealots who prefer Corel Painter for example.
[20:28] <thorwil> after all these years it would be sad if it didn't
[20:28] <bert_> I have a copy of CS3 over here :P
[20:28] <troy_s> bert_: It really is ... irrelevant.
[20:28] <thorwil> i mean, it's not from microsoft
[20:28] <troy_s> bert_: The ease of piracy is yet one more problem that FOSS is up against.
[20:28] <bert_> yeah that's thru
[20:29] <troy_s> bert_: When it comes to art though, ultimately, it is the ability of the individual.
[20:29] <thorwil> bert_: painter is made for digital painting, not manipulating photos. of course there's huge overlap
[20:29] <troy_s> bert_: And the willingness / want for change.
[20:29] <bert_> indeed
[20:29] <troy_s> thorwil: Photoshop has more or less grown into the poor man's compositor.
[20:30] <troy_s> thorwil: Layers is ... dated as hell.
[20:30] <troy_s> s/is/are
[20:30] <bert_> the problem here with many of the people I know is that they are afraid of change (speaking of FOSS)
[20:30] <thorwil> bert_: like troy here would beat any noob with a pc and offset printer just using potatoe stamps ;)
[20:30] <troy_s> Gah.  Hardly.
[20:31] <troy_s> I am just a mookie hack of no consequence.
[20:31] <troy_s> I am still awaiting someone to arrive on the scene with some ability and show the nay sayers what is possible.
[20:32] <troy_s> bert_: Strange thing that eh?
[20:32] <bert_> well, not really
[20:32] <bert_> the one will come
[20:32] <troy_s> bert_: We have a culture that has become uber-conservative.  The only real way to compete now will be to unleash the true potential for innovation.
[20:32] <bert_> he will follow the fat pinguin right to zenity :P
[20:33] <troy_s> bert_: We are trapped in a culture that lauds the absolutely backwards work in Fedora 8 or the new SUSE.  We have much to learn.
[20:33] <bert_> troy_s: how do you mean, the linux operating system is more innovative then vista, that's for usre :P
[20:33] <thorwil> troy_s: the funny thing is, now that gimp will have a nodal system as underpinnings (gegl), the interaction architect working on it wants to hide that aspect and the developers seem to agree
[20:34] <troy_s> bert_: Actually, most of what I see every day (and I try to absorb as much as I can) is a shoddy imitation of a poor duplication.
[20:34] <bert_> how do you mean troy_s ?
[20:34] <troy_s> thorwil: Yeah... exactly.  Lack of experience in the real world perhaps.  Creating a powerful tool with nodal compositing at its core would be extremely attractive to a number of extremely high profile users.
[20:35] <troy_s> bert_: Somewhere at our core is the geeky insecurity factor -- the inability to be something distinctive and new.
[20:35] <bert_> well, I don't see that in ubuntu to be onest
[20:35] <troy_s> bert_: We have grown quite a bit over the past even four years in this regard, but the attitude still persists underneath the decision making process.
[20:36] <bert_> (and I'm probably now going to hear that ubuntu is made to easy and lacks functionallity but I don't agree to thatà
[20:36] <bert_> *)
[20:36] <bert_> so you mean that linux users think they are better then windows users, and that that is our problem ?
[20:36] <troy_s> bert_: Not from me.  I spent 100% of my life on free software.  It isn't an option to discuss how something doesn't work etc.
[20:36] <thorwil> no, the thing is more that there's almost alyways a commercial model app or system that is being copied to some degre
[20:36] <troy_s> thorwil: +1
[20:36] <troy_s> bert_: That is exactly the problem.
[20:37] <bert_> well, I can't deny that
[20:37] <troy_s> bert_: Part of that is probably the nature of dev -- SVN and CVS weren't so great with 'branches'.
[20:37] <troy_s> bert_: The reality is that there _are_ some amazingly gifted creative types out there with fascinating and new ideas.
[20:37] <thorwil> but luckily, there are examples like ardour, starting out as a protools clone and now changing more and more into a thing of its own
[20:37] <bert_> I like to laugh with people who are complaining about some virusses and then i just come and delete them from their windows boxes and then I think, thank God I run linux
[20:37] <troy_s> bert_: I want to see more of what _they_ see.
[20:38] <troy_s> thorwil: Probably a maturity thing.
[20:38] <bert_> so you think linux is to busy trying to beat windows by making stuff there already is
[20:38] <bert_> and that they should be busy making stuff there isn't yet
[20:38] <bert_> right ?
[20:39] <thorwil> troy_s: as much as i'm in love with solid design processes from the start, thsi copy first and then see approach can work nicely
[20:39] <thorwil> bert_: right
[20:39] <troy_s> bert_: Personally, if we are talking about pushing the future forward and innovation, the terms 'Apple' and 'Microsoft' have no place in the sentence.
[20:39] <troy_s> bert_: Nor the term 'beat'.
[20:39] <bert_> yeah, you have a point
[20:39] <troy_s> bert_: Relative world.  Who is the "Toughest fighter"?  What is the "best piece of art"?  What is the "best food"?
[20:39] <thorwil> well, on that perspective it's all about being as good as possible
[20:40] <bert_> but I'm afraid that you're not going to get the competif part out of the linux geek...
[20:40] <thorwil> i wouldn't want to
[20:40] <troy_s> thorwil: I think the design process depends on your team.  As J. Ive has said time and time again, the thing he will remember from his work isn't the work, but the process.
[20:40] <troy_s> bert_: The number one factor to getting Linux into mainstream is to have everyone who is working on it realize they aren't a good audience.
[20:40] <troy_s> ;)
[20:41] <troy_s> and arguably, Free Software is mainstream now.
[20:41] <troy_s> the bigger fight comes.
[20:41] <bert_> well, 2008 is the year of linux according to Linus Torvalds :p
[20:41] <bert_> (when was the year he hasn't said that ? )
[20:41] <troy_s> bert_: I'd say that when a product or item gets onto the BBC or the Wall Street Journal, it happened.  That happened this year with at least a few products.
[20:42] <troy_s> bert_: The demon is in the details.
[20:42] <troy_s> bert_: Art and design start taking a center stage now.
[20:42] <troy_s> bert_: Nebulous concepts such as presence and such.
[20:42] <thorwil> how can they with so few designers around?
[20:43] <bert_> well, linux will come in the news soon, if more and more goverments switch to linux
[20:43] <troy_s> bert_: We at Ubuntu still can't avoid huge gaffs... Look at www.ubuntu.com as a starting point.
[20:43] <bert_> and I think that'll happen soon
[20:43] <bert_> I'm on ubuntu
[20:43] <troy_s> thorwil: It is certainly a fight.
[20:43] <bert_> ubuntu.com is my start page :P
[20:43] <bert_> how do you mean gaffs (don't know the word :S)
[20:44] <troy_s> bert_: Problem / flops / mistake
[20:44] <thorwil> no-noes, mistakes to be ashamed of
[20:44] <bert_> what kind of mistakes are there on the ubuntu site ?
[20:44] <thorwil> oh, an ubuntu doodle
[20:45] <troy_s> bert_: There would be a few if you were looking.
[20:45] <thorwil> now google is the model ;)
[20:45] <bert_> well, there are some pretty useless things on the website
[20:45] <bert_> and some things should be more userfriendly
[20:45] <troy_s> bert_:  The main issue is probably that getting to the right presentation takes a good deal of time.  Last week it was an extremely poorly chocked up advertisement for Dell computers.
[20:45] <bert_> but I think it's a lot easier then other Open Source project site's
[20:46] <troy_s> bert_: "Userfriendly" -- I despise that term as much as the "usability" one.
[20:46] <bert_> how should I call it then ?
[20:46] <troy_s> bert_: Not what you call it, think about what it means.
[20:47] <bert_> it means being easy, structured, fast, etc.
[20:47] <troy_s> bert_: Is it a universal truth akin to the speed of light, or something completely rooted in the 'user'
[20:47] <troy_s> bert_: Really?
[20:47] <troy_s> bert_: Follow up question -- what is 'easy'?
[20:47] <bert_> yeah, that's something personal...
[20:47] <troy_s> bert_: TheMuso's idea of 'easy' is a far far cry from mine, and as it should be.
[20:47] <bert_> I see what you mean
[20:47] <troy_s> bert_: The golden rule of all art and design -- who is the viewer?
[20:47] <troy_s> (hell all of mathematics for that matter too ;) )
[20:48] <bert_> that's kind of like making a site
[20:48] <bert_> who's the public who you're making something for, and then make sure the site is build for that kind of people
[20:49] <bert_> (I'm a webdesigner so I like to look at things from that direction)
[20:49] <troy_s> bert_: Art and design, at its core, is language.
[20:49] <troy_s> bert_: That means you need to figure out a few basics -- WHO are you communicating to, WHAT you are communicating, and HOW you are going to do it.
[20:50] <troy_s> bert_: As with language, it shifts.
[20:50] <bert_> I see your points
[20:50] <troy_s> bert_: At one point in the pre-Renaissance era, people used to 'center punch' every item compositionally for example.
[20:50] <bert_> yeah that's something you have to keep in mind
[20:50] <bert_> that's quite hard too
[20:50] <troy_s> bert_: That was entirely swept away with the advent of what you accept today -- classical composition.
[20:50] <bert_> I always seem to make things too ugly and too difficult
[20:51] <thorwil> bert_: sheesh, why? :)
[20:51] <bert_> I make a lot of webapps which are only used by site admins, so I make them black with white text and admmin terms
[20:52] <bert_> *admin
[20:52] <troy_s> bert_: Ugly is relative.  If it is ugly to you, you should probably spend a little time figuring out exactly what is pretty for you.
[20:52] <bert_> but you can't do that on a normal site
[20:52] <bert_> white background with black text, that's my basic understanding of ugly
[20:52] <troy_s> lol
[20:52] <bert_> and then you also have strange color combinations but that's no problem
[20:53] <thorwil> in some cases no design is just the right design :)
[20:53] <bert_> (except for my first site off course :p )
[20:53] <bert_> but I have to go now
[20:53] <bert_> off to the shower :P
[20:53] <bert_> thanks for this interesting discussion
[20:53] <bert_> I learned A LOT !!!
[20:53] <troy_s> thorwil: LOL.  That's still a design choice.  The idea of 'no' implies the completely invisible other.
[20:53] <thorwil> bert_: get clean well! ;)
[20:53] <bert_> hope to see you again some time ;)
[20:53] <troy_s> bert_: Lol.  Sad.  That will pass.
[20:53] <troy_s> :)
[20:54] <bert_> byebye ;)
[20:56] <thorwil> troy_s: if you take design to mean the process, then not.
[20:58] <thorwil> ooh, they're using the word "intuitive" on the art list now
[20:58] <thorwil> window switching by sucking on nipples? ;)
[20:59] <thorwil> (and i have been told even that has to be learned to be done properly)
[20:59] <troy_s> thorwil: LOL
[21:00] <troy_s> thorwil: I would think that statement is correct judging from how many new mothers have trouble with it.
[21:00] <troy_s> thorwil: Amen.
[21:01] <troy_s> thorwil: The relativism of the world is a rather scary thing.
[21:01] <thorwil> relatively, yes
[21:01] <thorwil> time for me again ... cya!
[21:02] <troy_s> thorwil: It reminds me of that quote regarding Zen (think of it what you will) that goes something like "Before I studied Zen, men were men and mountains were mountains.  While I studied Zen, men were mountains and mountains were men.  When I completed my studies, men were men and mountains were mountains."
[21:02] <troy_s> thorwil: Toodles.
[21:27] <salty-horse> hi. I'm trying to track bug with the arrows of the Human theme, but I can't find the arrow image sources. can anyone help?
[23:03] <troy_s> salty-horse: I believe the arrows would be in the Human icon set.
[23:05] <salty-horse> no file -iname-d "*arrow*"
[23:05] <salty-horse> and I found nothing in the theme definition files
[23:05] <salty-horse> (I don't know much about themes)