AppData Screenshot Requirements
zbyszek at in.waw.pl
Sat Dec 13 01:05:42 UTC 2014
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:53:01PM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> Mr. Hughes, I have a complaint.
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you want things to be pixel-crisp and your application ships only
> > one screenshot use 752x423. If you've got multiple screenshots use
> > 624x351, or integer multiples thereof. You can still ship random sized
> > screenshots bigger than 312x175 and we'll pad them out to the right
> > size and shape, but choosing a 16:9 resolution makes everything look
> > consistent in the software center. If you think 312x175 is being too
> > strict, you really need to have a look at this:
> > http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/screenshots/f22/624x351/proofgeneral-4d9bd746838746355151f75f38e3ac4c.png
> > -- I'm considering making 624x351 the smallest screenshot size allowed
> > for F22/F23 although this may be too strict at this stage.
I think you should step back and consider this in context.
*Everything* we do in Fedora, and more generally speaking in open
source, is a work in progress. There's no way to point out issues
except by showing examples. Anything else would be too handwavy.
gnome-software has taken the installation of applications to a new
level. For end-user graphical applications, especially games and
fonts, its a giant improvement. As with all new stuff, it's impossible
to guess all requirements upfront. When work on this started, hidpi
displays weren't as prevalent as they are now, and this wasn't as much
of an issue. But at least for the last year, recommendations have
been clear to have large 16:9 ratio screenshots.
Anyway, rhughes has put an incredible amount of work into this and is
doing a lot to coordinate various steps required to make this work. I
looked at the screenshot you linked, and I consider it an example,
presumably one of hundreds. Actually it is too fuzzy to make out
the application in it, unless you already know it. I'm certain that
the intent was not to riducule or discourage, but just to show the
> You, personally, asked that AppData be created for *all* packages .
> I took you seriously.
> You, personally, told me that "any screenshot is better than no
> screenshot" . I took you seriously.
> I spent hours of my personal time, time that I could have spent in
> other pursuits, to create AppData for a number of packages and try to
> push upstreams to take it. Then you started throwing my work away,
> because you didn't like a toolkit, or you didn't like an icon size,
> discarding work that I spent precious time on based on criteria that
> *were not revealed up front* (see  again). And now you have
> rewarded my efforts to take you seriously by holding those efforts up
> for public shame and ridicule.
> When one is managing an effort staffed by volunteers, "Do not waste
> the volunteers' time" and "Do not embarrass the volunteers in front of
> large groups of people" ought to be on one's top ten list of guiding
> principles for the effort. You could have sent me private email
> telling me that the ProofGeneral screenshot is too ugly to live. I
> would have been fine with that. Please understand that my motivation
> to continue assisting with the AppData effort has been decreasing over
> time, and has now hit a new low. For your sake, I hope that is not
> true of other volunteers as well.
> Please send me a list of the AppData in my packages that is not up to
> your standards, or will not be up to your standards next year, and I
> will do a git push to make it disappear.
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/188799.html
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-November/191616.html
More information about the devel