On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:19 +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Evan Dandrea<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I still have not found a way to do image blurring via > >> CSS, so we may not even be able to go down that road anyway. I'll try > >> to determine a desirable alternative solution with legal though. > > I've come across this, but my javascript-fu is lacking and I've been > unable to get it working thusfar. > > http://www.webveteran.com/portfolio/demos/reflector/ > > Legal got back to me, and if we find some way to make the javascript > approach work, we'll be in line with the license terms for the Firefox > logo. They did however request that we respect the branding used for > Firefox on the CD image, as some OEM CD images use an unbranded > Firefox. I'll start a discussion with Alexander Sack, of the Mozilla > packaging team in Ubuntu, about how to best handle that.
Oh, cool! I was actually looking at that same javascript solution a few days ago, alongside the GIMP stuff. If you can figure it out, I'll consider you a magician :) Still, I'm starting to like this GIMP solution quite a bit. I tweaked the reflections a bit so that the blur is somewhat stronger vertically. I think the effect is pretty useful to hide the seams, especially for those icons that try to look 3D (where the reflection rather destroys that effect). Another option for Firefox: simply ship the unchanged icon as it comes; it's, uh, magically invisible at certain angles, thus not reflected. That will deal with some of the trouble and avoid the haziness with the "just do it dynamically" approach, where I feel we are following the trademark guidelines to the letter but not really following their intent. In the worst case, we can always use a generic icon (maybe the official unbranded Firefox globe one, if there's a version over 128x128 pixels somewhere) or simply talk about something else on the expectation that people will see "Firefox Web Browser" in the menu and have some vague idea what it does anyway (albeit without the extra incentive to check out extensions). The OEM images thing is troublesome. Thanks for pointing it out. I guess strings would need to change, too... except I don't totally understand how the OEM images work. Would they be shipping a different version of the Ubiquity data packages and everything, or the same one we have in normal Ubuntu? (Would it be possible to just facilitate changing this at build time, which could be done through a system of horrifying but functional hacks, or do we need to do it somehow during use?) Looking forward to Alexander's thoughts :) Thanks, Dylan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubiquity-slideshow Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubiquity-slideshow More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
