louis.desjardins at gmail.com
Mon Aug 30 06:22:35 PDT 2010
2010/8/30 Camille Bissuel <cbissuel at yagraph.org>
> Hi all, and thanks Yuval for your thoughts.
> Drawing my sketches for the website, I initially targeted every category of
> public you mention (except maybe "a - the general public")...
I think it is important to keep an eye on the average reader. If clearly
put, the information can be most valuable to any level of readers! Anybody
who is motivated and interested in the topic should be able to understand
what we talk about. This does not mean we won’t introduce specific
vocabulary. No! A crystal clear explanation needs to be built on an adequate
vocabulary. But I guess most of what we have to say is within the reach of a
lot of people...
> I do agree that if the magazine is well targeted for LG users, the website
> must have a larger audience.
> As expressed initially, aim is to "spread and promote libre graphics
> software, present them as professional, and connect LG people".
> To mention proprietary tools maybe useful for some publics, like to say
> "Inkscape is An Open Source vector graphics editor, with capabilities
> similar to Illustrator, CorelDraw, or Xara X", but it's also quite dangerous
> : as a.l.e said, we don't want to appear as cheaper than a proprietary tool,
> because it's assimilated to less functional.
The "less functional" part is something most anybody will find alone. Part
of the risk lies in how we say things, I guess (more below on that).
> Gimp's people hate to ear people compare Gimp to Photoshop, and I agree :
> Gimp is not a clone, it have different goals, different philosophy,
> different resources, etc.
> So for some public it's useful to say "Inkscape is An Open Source vector
> graphics editor, with capabilities similar to Illustrator, CorelDraw, or
> Xara X", but I do not which to put more than this short line.
The other trap we should not fall into is simplification. I think the risk
is great to mislead people or to create unrealistic expectations in the mind
of *a lot* of potential users if we go the too short way. What we have to
say is not simple, in fact. Let’s not skip the most interesting part of the
explanation only because there is a will to be short. It usually takes
longer to write concisely.
I think it is perfectly sane to mention some reference points along an
explanation and mentionning them cannot — unless with a large portion of bad
faith — be interpreted as "promoting" those reference points.
I have no problem with mentionning Illustrator, CorelDraw or Xara X,
Photoshop or any other tools but this needs to be put in perspective when we
discuss about Libre software. So, I believe a simple sentence might not do
> On the other hand, I don't think we want to spit on companies like Adobe no
> more : if we can share standards, it's a good thing.
> But to promote freedom against those propriety tools is one the the goal of
> this LG website to my eyes.
> So, we have to be very careful on this subject, and the less we do, the
> less we draw confusion : one line, no more. IMHO, make comparative table is
> a trap we want to avoid.
I would say, let’s reinvent the comparative tables. Concentrate on what we
can achieve and how than on the presence or absence of such or such features
while keeping in mind that some features are simply impossible not to have.
Having said that, I believe that comparison is not bad per se. Doing the
exercise might prove to be pretty useful to help develop better
applications. After all, at the origin of LG there is an implicit comparison
with what’s offered in the market. At some point, some people where not
completely happy with some tools done and sold by others so they created
their own. By comparing we can evaluate better the whys and hows, see if the
projects are as innovative as we think they are, etc.
> Also, It would be great to have Create badges on each project website who
> agree to !
Yes ! That’s a good idea !
> I think we are reaching some point of consensus on this subject, and I'd be
> glad to start working on i in the next weeks.
Let’s go !
> See you,
> 2010/8/29 Jon Nordby <jononor at gmail.com>
> On 28 August 2010 06:53, Yuval Levy <create07 at sfina.com> wrote:
>> > Maybe we need a better way to communicate *interoperability* and
>> > which is what the slick "suite" is all about. How about a "create"
>> badge on
>> > each project website that adheres to interoperability standards? linking
>> to a
>> > single page in the create wiki that describes this interoperability and
>> > benefits for the users?
>> I think this is an excellent idea. I would add such a badge to the
>> MyPaint website. There should probably also be badges for more
>> specific things like OpenRaster.
>> > A website can be everything and nothing to everybody and nobody. I
>> believe to
>> > be successful it must have a focus. The magazine manifesto recently
>> > by ginger coons on this list is a beautiful example of expression of
>> > focus. Where is that for the LG website?
>> A minimally useful LG website, as I see it, would answer the following
>> What is "Libre Graphics" (definition)?
>> What kind of projects, people, events, values are related to this
>> term? What do the projects/people/events have in common, how are they
>> different? What are they about (very brief/high level info)? Where do
>> I find more information about them? (link to individual websites)
>> Each member project could then promote that they are a "Libre
>> Graphics" project, and refer to the LG website. This way, the member
>> projects can communicate that they are part of a bigger thing, and
>> users of one project can easily find related projects by going to the
>> LG website, get an overview and then go along to other interesting
>> projects websites.
>> Regards Jon Nordby - www.jonnor.com
>> CREATE mailing list
>> CREATE at lists.freedesktop.org
> CREATE mailing list
> CREATE at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CREATE