OpenSource needs Quality – not Quantity!
I was just stumbling through art.gnome.org, after reading the “What’s new?“-page of GNOME 2.26 and I was wondering why the control themes I’ve submitted some years ago are still on page two of seven. I remembered the time, in which I used to be an active moderator on art.gnome.org and accepted/rejected themes. Then ago, Thomas (Wood) consistently rejected all themes that were low-quality or simply just tasteless to keep AGO a top-notch portal for everything regarding art on GNOME – what I totally supported.
However, so I thought, that either there just haven’t been many themes released since I’ve last checked (afair over a year ago) or there just haven’t been any good themes that were submitted and accepted at AGO. To verify that, I’ve taken a look at the gnome-look.org themes-section and proved my assumption true: I browsed through the first few pages of the GTK 2.x section and my eyes began to hurt. Then, I sorted the section to start with the highest-rated themes and my eyes hurt even more. One theme was – in the matter of quality and usability – worse than the other. Everywhere you looked only rough-cut pixmaps thrown together, added some really-not-looking-good background images to the menus and the window elements themselves and finished it all up with a foreground-color that either provided an exaggerated or an awfully low value of contrast. Meh.
The bummer is, that the majority of all themes look like that and only a few ones, mostly created by known artists like roberTO, Jakub and others really look tasteful and qualitatively good. In my opinion, this was and still is a major problem of the whole OpenSource community. OpenSource gives you the power to choose, modify and re-distribute, but I guess that exactly this power is being used in a wrong way – not only in the matter of control themes!
In general, especially within the Linux area, there are nearly no standards. Spoken from the designers’ view, there are not enough definitions like the GNOME UI-Design Guideline or the Tango Project, which try to convince and help the developers and/or designers to draw qualitatively better themes while still keeping up the freedom to choose and create. Of course, this won’t stop misbehaving designers to submit themes to un- or sloppy-moderated sites like gnome-look.org, but still it would provide the GNOME folks a “pressurizing medium” to say “You make it the good way, your theme might make it into our official project releases or at least on the cover of the official sites!“.
Though, for a real GNU/FSF-guy this way might sound like to much of “controlling” and “regulating” and by that lead to an operating system like for example Mac OS X (no, not Windows, there you have an even bigger problem regarding applications that look totally different than others) is. Still, most of these guys forget, that without at least a little bit of guide-lining, regulating and separating the wheat from the chaff especially the Linux Desktop will never make it into a higher market-share. There definitely is a reason, why companies like Novell and Red Hat keep up the hard and cost-intense work on their own UI-designs and improvements. If you want the users to be convinced about using a clean and stable operating system, you cannot simply stick with a UI on which the users’ thoughts are “Uh.” from the first click they’re doing. And of course, tastes are different and each user has a different one, but in one point all users will share the same opinion: An UI needs to be tidy and neat. No pixels. No exaggerated anti-aliasing (which should be better called “blur” in 90% of the existing GTK themes). Just a sleek and intuitive interface with clean structures and without distracting or even deranging elements (… like black backgrounds, white foregrounds and pixmaps that remind you of some white-noise-graph).
On software techniques the GNOME community seems to finally has understood what KDE is doing for years now already. There has to be a clean infrastructure (or backbone or whatever you’d like to call it) for solving problems and providing features. GNOME has started the move to GStreamer some years ago and now finally also moved to a backend (PulseAudio) which provides such an infrastructure. Also, introducing D-BUS and the HAL was a big step for the whole Desktop-Project, and the Gnome VFS seems to be trying to really compete with KDE’s now. So, as it seems, developers have finally recognized, that (especially in enterprise use) a desktop with no integration and where each application works different and uses a different infrastructure for providing audio, video or whatever else will never succeed against “the big ones”.
Unfortunately, in the matter of UI design, it still seems to take a while until contributors understand that it’s worthless drawing themes that look like Vista’s interface printed on a dot-matrix printer. By that, users of other desktop systems will always keep looking and thinking of Linux to be an unstable and totally not-integrative desktop-system, hacked together by some crazy, long-bearded freaks. Because for low-brown users, the UI is an essential element that helps them deciding whether a system looks usable to them or not. With an interface where each application looks the same, acts the same and allows the user to get this work done in an undisturbing way – and maybe adds a little bit of pleasure with smooth and clean looking effects (and by that I don’t think of wobbly windows!) – even someone that’s new to the matter will be able to get in touch with it quite fast.
I’m still waiting for the day on which especially GNOME’s interface-nazis finally make the move and decline all applications that do not strictly follow clearly defined designing guidelines for a clean and usable UI – even if it would throw out half of the applications shipped with a regular GNOME desktop (like Pidgin, OpenOffice.org, and so on…). Until then, I guess that Linux itself can be as solid as a rock, as fast as a lightening and free as free beer – it won’t be able to increase its popularity and climb the higher market-shares. Just because of the “look and feel”, which sometimes is just more important then pure functionality. Else, we would still be working on the CLI, wouldn’t we? 
// btw: This is my 500th post I’ve been writing within over four years now already. Heh.