veqz wrote:That actually sounds pretty good.

Just one thing:

• Breeze Image Viewer
• Breeze Video Player
• Breeze Calendar
• Breeze Weather Forecast

This would limit us to only one application per area, wouldn't it? What happens if we have two different image viewers, or two different calendars?

Or are these just general examples, so what we would actually end up with are things like:

• Breeze Kate
• Breeze Calligra Words
• Breeze Gwenview
• Breeze Dolphin

I'd have the naming convention follow the functionality; otherwise we get into a name-within-a-name thing. It would also mean that, yep, there would be one definitive 'Breeze' app per area. That being said, there's no reason why there could not be a 'Breeze Image Viewer' and a 'Breeze Photo Editor'. But when I think of 'Breeze Applications' I'm thinking the stock stuff - the 'default' apps distributed with KDE - and in that mindset you wouldn't have two 'stock' image viewers. In this same sense, you wouldn't have a 'Breeze Gwenview'; either Gwenview would be replaced or renamed to 'Breeze Image Manager'. It would also imply that there are multiple interpretations, when 'Breeze' apps should be kept as a standard of consistency - at least for the basics.

Now, if I had my way...
(5 utterly dangerous words that can come out of my mouth)

Existing stock apps may not want to drink the kool-aid, and that's fine, but depending on the complexity I'd like to see a uniform presentation in the default applications, and potentially that might mean swapping out some applications... I don't think complex programs or some of our more remarkable applications should attempt to fall under this umbrella (Kate, Dolphin), and there are certainly apps which this doesn't apply to (system settings); just the small simple programs which could easily be kept at 'showcase' quality and polish with relatively little manpower, incorporate advances quickly - like dynamic window decorations (when I get off my butt and send some specs to Martin), and serve as suitable everyday casual-Joe apps for 90% of users. They should also be little code examples which other programmers can say 'oh that's how they did it' if we integrate some nice new Qt/KF5 features.

That's my thought when I imagine 'Breeze' applications.

EDIT: Wow Thomas, even down to the photo editor example, I'd swear we're hearing the same voices.

Personally I like Breeze

Kver wrote:Existing stock apps may not want to drink the kool-aid, and that's fine, but depending on the complexity I'd like to see a uniform presentation in the default applications, and potentially that might mean swapping out some applications... I don't think complex programs or some of our more remarkable applications should attempt to fall under this umbrella (Kate, Dolphin), and there are certainly apps which this doesn't apply to (system settings); just the small simple programs which could easily be kept at 'showcase' quality and polish with relatively little manpower, incorporate advances quickly - like dynamic window decorations (when I get off my butt and send some specs to Martin), and serve as suitable everyday casual-Joe apps for 90% of users. They should also be little code examples which other programmers can say 'oh that's how they did it' if we integrate some nice new Qt/KF5 features.

That's my thought when I imagine 'Breeze' applications.

So, I'm just continuing to think out loud here:

• Um... the standard File Browser should be part of Breeze, shouldn't it?
• KWrite could become Breeze Write, or somesuch?
• Would Konsole become Breeze Terminal?
• Konversation could be Breeze Chat?

Hmm... I initially liked the idea of Breeze - and it is a good name - but I'm not sure if this is the right way to implement it...

veqz wrote:That's my thought when I imagine 'Breeze' applications.

So, I'm just continuing to think out loud here:

• Um... the standard File Browser should be part of Breeze, shouldn't it?
• KWrite could become Breeze Write, or somesuch?
• Would Konsole become Breeze Terminal?
• Konversation could be Breeze Chat?

Hmm... I initially liked the idea of Breeze - and it is a good name - but I'm not sure if this is the right way to implement it...[/quote]

The file browser might be the most difficult one. Dolphin is already an established brand even for non-Plasma-users, because it's just that good. We might still want to do our own file browser, though, because most of our designs can't be implemented well with QWidgets, and I don't think it's likely that anyone will have the resources to rewrite Dolphin as it is with QML in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it might actually make sense to create a simple "Breeze Files" (probably with tighter Baloo integration) while still of course allowing anyone to use Dolphin instead (and distros to ship Dolphin by default instead of Breeze Files).

Having a simple "Breeze Write" or "Breeze Text" or whatever sounds useful to me. KWrite is basically just a "dumbed-down Kate" anyway, and I guess it's way less recognized as a brand than Kate. So we could have Kate as the powerful "as close as it gets to an IDE without actually being an IDE" editor and a Breeze Text as "I just want to quickly write down a plaintext file" application for people who don't need any of Kate's advanced functionality.

Konversation might already be too complex for a Breeze Chat. For people who just instealled their system and just want to go to IRC to get some help, Konversation already offers too many features.

I'm not sure I like the idea of mass re-branding of applications. This would be like google re-branding their apps along the lines of Material Design Maps & Material Design Mail. I'm a firm believer that applications should stand on their own merit, and with their own name. It is up to distributions to decide on the default applications, and for users to decide after that. People will naturally gravitate to applications that fit in better if they are that way inclined, just like I prefer Qt applications over other toolkits. The problem we have is that we have an idea on how the complete desktop should be with Frameworks, Plasma, and prefered core applications that fit in, but we do not have a name for that to market. Realistically this has got nothing to do with end users, but everything to do with distributions, and they are the ones KDE need to be marketing this 'as intended' look to.

That does not sound very good, you do not understand if you try to do Breeze as part of KDE, or as a thing apart Elementary distro, that I mean, ok the new program of photos if Koko is an exception, but in general has kde already the best applications than any other DE, you speak to other applications that do the same things but with fewer features, but they are beautiful, I thought that the goal was to improve the applications that already exist that would be better, and less waste of resources and subsequent maintenance!
I apologize if it seems a bad comment, but it's my simple thought, I like Breeze and your work, but this sounds strange
IMHO it would be better to write applications that are missing in KDE, as a great Web browser, a good KCM for online account, a good program for printer and scanner, a good gui to connect two PC easily with Samba, and not rewrite what already exists

veqz wrote:So, I'm just continuing to think out loud here:

• Um... the standard File Browser should be part of Breeze, shouldn't it?
• KWrite could become Breeze Write, or somesuch?
• Would Konsole become Breeze Terminal?
• Konversation could be Breeze Chat?

Hmm... I initially liked the idea of Breeze - and it is a good name - but I'm not sure if this is the right way to implement it...

Hrm, after reading the thoughts on it from everyone, I agree that maybe my imagination was firing a bit too hard; having *everything* be 'Breeze X' would probably be a bit overkill.

If the application maintainers wanted to succeed their apps with 'Breeze' versions that would still be great - but I think everyone is right in that pushing it any harder than a small selection of applications would probably be more damaging than productive.

That, and in hindsight it could also have another damaging effect; if we tried to name everything 'Breeze' people might get the wrong idea and just start naming their applications 'Breeze', whether or not they were aiming to follow the guidelines - similarly to how people tend to slap K's onto current applications. We'd be reinventing the K.

Perhaps it should be treated like the scrapped 'Android Silver' plan that Google attempted - basically how everyone is suggesting; we'll get a nice handful of core apps with the name, and if devs want to hop in we'll give them the extra assistance necessary to drink the juice.

How it would be to have a cooperate design (app, webpage, ....) the by kde, made for plasma, breeze x, .... whatever is not so necessary. Cooperate design first and the name is ...

We have now problems with the naming (plasma, kde, ...) with an additional name it doesn't help. And I don't like the spelling error K and I don't like to have applications breeze 1, breeze 2, ....

we have plasma and apps that will work on plasma, so maybe you can take app names based on plasma (physic) like debian use names from toy story.

IMHumbleO,

It seems to me that what we agree on is that there's a place for these core apps designed with our full attention on style, usability etc, etc... that fit in perfecly with the Plasma 5 desktop. If that's the case then there's real stuff to be done - deciding on workflows, visual design and that sort of thing. At the end of the day whatever name we choose is secondary - it's the design principals etc that go into the apps we create that's important.

I think we may well just pick a name (Breeze gets my vote - it's the best suggested so far IMO) & get on with the proper work, the name can always be changed later.

+1 for breeze

Breeze is a good name. I remember thinking that it's a shame it's already being used for the theme so it can't be used for applications (but of course it can!)

I tend to think that rather than rebranding existing applications, we should create a new suite of simple core apps (using existing libraries as much as possible) with a very clear focus. Now would be a good time because we could make the transition to QtQuick at the same time.

I think it's all about the focus. In addition to following the design guidelines, all the Breeze apps should have similar scope and target group. I'll try to explain by giving an example what the focus could be:

• Core functionality: the breeze apps would be something almost everyone needs as a part of the desktop experience
• Concentrate on the essentials and design, cater for the 95%. Leave the less common and more demanding use cases to more powerful alternative applications (e.g. Kate for more involved text editing)
• Instead of creating an identity for each app, try to "blend" to the Plasma desktop. Leave room for more specialized alternatives to brand themselves.

So, my vision in short: a set of applications that stay out of the way and you hardly think of as independent applications. Make them powerful enough to take care of all the typical basic tasks but be careful to not add too many features. The now existing applications will still be around and they are quite feature rich, providing alternatives for more demanding users. There are several reasons to resist too many features: they can compromize simplicity and design, they increase the number of bugs, and finally we need to keep the amount of work needed to realize all this as low as possible.

I agree with this:

Tuukka wrote:cater for the 95%

Make the Breeze apps with enough bells & whistles to be able to satisfy most people but don't try & please everybody! Maybe we should start off the design of an app by defining some core tasks that it would be used for & make sure that they're super-slick??

ken300 wrote:Make the Breeze apps with enough bells & whistles to be able to satisfy most people but don't try & please everybody! Maybe we should start off the design of an app by defining some core tasks that it would be used for & make sure that they're super-slick??

Well, we have Koko (photo gallery), we have Bangarang (music player) and we have Jungle (video player): Three applications that we already have a developer willing to work on- I'd stick with those as our first candidates so that we won't end up with a design nobody will implement.

colomar wrote:Well, we have Koko (photo gallery), we have Bangarang (music player) and we have Jungle (video player): Three applications that we already have a developer willing to work on- I'd stick with those as our first candidates so that we won't end up with a design nobody will implement.

It might be a good idea to work with applications that are already there but are still defining their future direction so that the developers are open to the idea of rebranding and perhaps changing the focus of the app a bit. However, more established applications with a large existing user base are perhaps better left as they are rather that trying to change them into something completely else.

Tuukka wrote:It might be a good idea to work with applications that are already there but are still defining their future direction so that the developers are open to the idea of rebranding and perhaps changing the focus of the app a bit. However, more established applications with a large existing user base are perhaps better left as they are rather that trying to change them into something completely else.

Those three applications are already there. Bangarang has been around for quite a while but has to be ported to Baloo and Frameworks 5 and is developed by our very own Andrew Lake. Jungle and Koko are both in an alpha stadium and are developed mainly by Vishesh who we are in close collaboration with. All three are excellent candidates for this.