Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Feb 2010 19:06 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Thread beginning with comment 409050
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-11-21
The technology looks impressive, but it seems there is a bit lacking in the art refinement/direction part of KDE. It reminds me a bit of computer games, where people will tell you that good graphics is part technology and part artistry. For instance, games like ICO/Shadow of the Colossus looked great despite the very limited graphics capability of the PS2 at the time they were shipping.
KDE seems to be an example of the opposite situation. The technology is there to make it look great, yet it doesn't. The desktop bar at the bottom of the screen looks fairly amateurish, apart from the Cashew at the far right, which looks well integrated into the bar. Likewise, the default toolkit theme looks poorly integrated with the plasma elements, icons and window theme.
I don't think this will change until someone takes a top down approach, says "this is the way it should look" and then changes every sub-element of KDE (Qt, included applications, window manager theme, etc) to match this vision.
The Gnome-shell people seem to have taken this top down approach in the design of the GUI:
http://www.gnome.org/~mccann/screenshots/clips/20100106201448/shell...
But then it remains to be seen how well it is implemented.