Hi,
There is a student working on multi monitor wallpaper support for Nuancier. You can look for his progress here:
https://prthp.wordpress.com/category/gsoc/
That we provide at least dual monitor wallpaper, was more then once requested on us.
There are currently 24 different variations for resolutions, some might not be from interest. The problem is simple even when it are only two monitors, we have to produce a huge variety of different wallpapers. Its not just produce two wallpaper and leave the scaling to the DE. Let me give you an example. Right now I working on a laptop with an resolution of 1024x768 and a second monitor is attached with 1920x1200 and he is standing on the left side. So only one possibility means 2 pictures, if I change the position of the monitor to the right side it are already 4. Not speaking that some developer have often an attached monitor in portrait mode for reading documentation.
What it means for us as Design Team means, we have to decide if we want to provide dual or multi-monitor wallpaper for the default wallpaper and then produce just one picture large enough and the user can go to Nuancier and get the right resolutions by them self.
So for a dual setup we would have to provide a picture 5120x2560 that would cover, two monitors of 2560x2048 resolution and even would cover one in portrait mode. If we want to provide a triple monitor setup it would be 7680x2560
Q: just dual or do we want to provide triple also?
But there are more open questions, do we want to allow user contributions there or do we just to make as section where we produce some wallpapers for it? If we want to make user contributions possible then is the question, how to deal with it, I personally think the a release submission phase will not work for this kind of wallpaper. There might be only one or maybe two submissions in this way as you need stitched photographies. Leave as an always submission thing might be the better option but we would not have an mechanism we have with the election to ensure quality standards.
Q: opinions on that?
and there is one question more, for the normal supplemental wallpaper the Fedora logo is not allowed as they are packaged and could end up in a derivate of Fedora. But this is then just an online solution so do we want another rules setup for them or keep the one from supplemental wallpapers?
Hope to get some of you opinions on that things
br gnokii
Hey gnokii -
On 07/29/2015 09:06 AM, S.Kemter wrote:
What it means for us as Design Team means, we have to decide if we want to provide dual or multi-monitor wallpaper for the default wallpaper and then produce just one picture large enough and the user can go to Nuancier and get the right resolutions by them self.
So we chatted about this in IRC earlier today, and here's my understanding:
- The default wallpaper process as we do it right now (provide single monitor version of the wallpaper in 5:4, 4:3, 16:9, 16:10 and package it) would still be the same
- When we create the default wallpaper, though, we'd design it with the possibility of (at least) dual screens in mind, and we'd render it at an additional size large enough for multiple monitor layouts to be created from it.
- The multiple-monitor version of the default wallpaper wouldn't be shipped in the f$version-backgrounds packages, but instead would be 'shipped' via nuancier itself and we would point people to nuancier as the place to get it and to customize it for their particular monitor set up.
Is that an accurate representation of the idea?
If so I think it's a great idea. The question would be at what size should we render the multi-monitor version of the default wallpaper for nuancier?
So for a dual setup we would have to provide a picture 5120x2560 that would cover, two monitors of 2560x2048 resolution and even would cover one in portrait mode. If we want to provide a triple monitor setup it would be 7680x2560
Maybe we could start at dual - rendering to 5120x2560 - by default and see how people use it. If we get enough usage and requests for triple monitor, maybe then we could reconsider making it 7680x2560 then? (I think 4k monitors might start becoming more used in the coming years as well and that might change things down the line.) But I think starting small and seeing what the feedback is might be the best way to go.
But there are more open questions, do we want to allow user contributions there or do we just to make as section where we produce some wallpapers for it? If we want to make user contributions possible then is the question, how to deal with it, I personally think the a release submission phase will not work for this kind of wallpaper. There might be only one or maybe two submissions in this way as you need stitched photographies. Leave as an always submission thing might be the better option but we would not have an mechanism we have with the election to ensure quality standards.
I think we'd need a section for the 'default' or 'official' wallpapers to be separated from the user contribution section.
Since the multi-monitor wallpapers couldn't really be packaged and make sense (since the cropping tool is in nuancier) I agree it doesn't make sense to just have them in the normal supplemental process.
An alternative would be to have another section in nuancier that's for user-contributed multi-monitor wallpapers only; maybe that would have a workflow to it where we could provide feedback as a team and vet wallpapers before they go live on the site for download? I agree it doesn't make sense for it to be release-driven; maybe just keep it an open thing and we review them as they come in. (Maybe nuancier emails design-team list to let us know when a contribution is made that needs review?)
and there is one question more, for the normal supplemental wallpaper the Fedora logo is not allowed as they are packaged and could end up in a derivate of Fedora. But this is then just an online solution so do we want another rules setup for them or keep the one from supplemental wallpapers?
We do get more freedom here since they wouldn't be shipped. I personally don't have an issue with folks contributing multi-monitor wallpapers with the Fedora logo as long as we review them for adherence to the logo usage guidelines and QA them before they go live on the site for anybody to see and download. We might want to check with Fedora legal and just make sure this is okay to do (but I can't see why not, honestly - as long as the logo is used properly and we check this before it goes live, I don't see why there would be a problem, so maybe this is completely unnecessary.)
~m
Hi,
2015-07-29 23:13 GMT+02:00 Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org:
Hey gnokii -
On 07/29/2015 09:06 AM, S.Kemter wrote:
What it means for us as Design Team means, we have to decide if we want to provide dual or multi-monitor wallpaper for the default wallpaper and then produce just one picture large enough and the user can go to Nuancier and get the right resolutions by them self.
So we chatted about this in IRC earlier today, and here's my understanding:
- The default wallpaper process as we do it right now (provide single
monitor version of the wallpaper in 5:4, 4:3, 16:9, 16:10 and package it) would still be the same
++
- When we create the default wallpaper, though, we'd design it with the
possibility of (at least) dual screens in mind, and we'd render it at an additional size large enough for multiple monitor layouts to be created from it.
- The multiple-monitor version of the default wallpaper wouldn't be
shipped in the f$version-backgrounds packages, but instead would be 'shipped' via nuancier itself and we would point people to nuancier as the place to get it and to customize it for their particular monitor set up.
Is that an accurate representation of the idea?
++
If so I think it's a great idea. The question would be at what size should we render the multi-monitor version of the default wallpaper for nuancier?
So for a dual setup we would have to provide a picture 5120x2560 that
would cover, two monitors of 2560x2048 resolution and even would cover one in portrait mode. If we want to provide a triple monitor setup it would be 7680x2560
Maybe we could start at dual - rendering to 5120x2560 - by default and see how people use it. If we get enough usage and requests for triple monitor, maybe then we could reconsider making it 7680x2560 then? (I think 4k monitors might start becoming more used in the coming years as well and that might change things down the line.) But I think starting small and seeing what the feedback is might be the best way to go.
I made yesterday a little user survey in #fedora-de got 8 answer all used dual monitor. 7 of them used two monitors of the same type, one not and two had one of them turned to portrait.
But there are wild options out there: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SBN9z.jpg
think also, the dual version would be fine to go in the first place. But looking via google picture search on "multiple monitor setup" triple monitor is shown often and the work places look not wild geeky type. I had a few months ago to provide a triple monitor workstation to a customer, so I did a research, there are vendors out that provide them in a pre-produced way.
http://www.oncenter.com/products/ost/images/OST-triple-screen-cap_thumb.jpg
We could also try to get feedback in advance, an idea would be writing an Fedora Magazine story about the GSoC project and attach an poll to it.
But there are more open questions, do we want to allow user
contributions there or do we just to make as section where we produce some wallpapers for it? If we want to make user contributions possible then is the question, how to deal with it, I personally think the a release submission phase will not work for this kind of wallpaper. There might be only one or maybe two submissions in this way as you need stitched photographies. Leave as an always submission thing might be the better option but we would not have an mechanism we have with the election to ensure quality standards.
I think we'd need a section for the 'default' or 'official' wallpapers to be separated from the user contribution section.
How it looks is entirly to us, at a certain point we have to provide to Prth and Pingou, Threebean some mockups how we think it should look like, so that they can do it.
Since the multi-monitor wallpapers couldn't really be packaged and make sense (since the cropping tool is in nuancier) I agree it doesn't make sense to just have them in the normal supplemental process.
An alternative would be to have another section in nuancier that's for user-contributed multi-monitor wallpapers only; maybe that would have a workflow to it where we could provide feedback as a team and vet wallpapers before they go live on the site for download? I agree it doesn't make sense for it to be release-driven; maybe just keep it an open thing and we review them as they come in. (Maybe nuancier emails design-team list to let us know when a contribution is made that needs review?)
that was my thinking in general. I spoke with Pingou a while ago about that feedback as it not only is from interest according to the multi monitor wallpapers.
Right now situation is we have a special group for Nuancier called nuancier-mentors. This group has a) higher rating on the votings and b) was thought to provide feedback to submissions. All design team member get automatically added to nuancier-mentors as well a set of people like Harald Hoyer who contributed over a longer phase good submissions.
Just the feedback is not integrated yet.
and there is one question more, for the normal supplemental wallpaper
the Fedora logo is not allowed as they are packaged and could end up in a derivate of Fedora. But this is then just an online solution so do we want another rules setup for them or keep the one from supplemental wallpapers?
We do get more freedom here since they wouldn't be shipped. I personally don't have an issue with folks contributing multi-monitor wallpapers with the Fedora logo as long as we review them for adherence to the logo usage guidelines and QA them before they go live on the site for anybody to see and download. We might want to check with Fedora legal and just make sure this is okay to do (but I can't see why not, honestly - as long as the logo is used properly and we check this before it goes live, I don't see why there would be a problem, so maybe this is completely unnecessary.)
I have same opinion on it I also have no problem on it to allow it, its just and a certain point the rules must be fixed and I also would prefer to got green light from legal, makes me feeling better ;)
br gnokii
~m
design-team@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Máirín Duffy -
S.Kemter