Awesome! "elegant" is a lovelly way to cover that ground - what do you think
Martin?
/jens
On tisdag 13 juni 2017 kl. 11:30:10 CEST Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On zaterdag 10 juni 2017 09:28:38 CEST Jens Reuterberg wrote:
> > You are a man of my own heart!
> >
> > Beautiful is the core ideal of "venustatis" - I just went for
> > "interesting"
> > because beautiful has become so... depricated in English usage (or modern/
> > western usage). Almost like a pejorative. In practice beauty contains
> > "interesting" as well so thats why I went for that as a go-between.
> > A sort of city planning idea where beauty is the thing that drives people
> > to want to explore something - a slight bend in a road so you can't see
> > down it. An inexplicable park placed between houses to entice you.
> >
> > For me, and to Vitruvius, beauty was the thing in any design that gave the
> > user pleasure and need to be near it. A object or construct needed to be
> > stable and durable, then it needed to be usable by a human, designed by
> > human metrics - but then it also needed to be pleasurable to be near
> > ("pleasurable" has a completely different context now so I didn't use that
> > - don't want us blocked in security-filters on search engines )
> >
> > I would more than happily change it to "we design to be beautiful" I just
> > worry that it sounds negative? But if you and others think that would be
> > better - I would LOVE to change it to "beautiful"
> >
> > Oh also here is the phabricator task https://phabricator.kde.org/T2070
>
> How about "elegant" instead of beautiful? For me, it encompasses even more
> positive aspects we strive for.
>
> Also, I'd remove the total in total trust as it could be seen as us shifting
> responsibility to the user, for example in picking excellent defaults.
> Moreover, total doesn't actually add a lot here, at least IMO.
