Jesus, it's so inconsistent. I suppose that may be beneficial when looking at all of your folders at a bird's eye view but my knee jerk reaction isn't the most positive.
These are definitely an improvement over the current icons but while some of the design rules are evident, i think a bit of refining is in order.
The games and download folders both need a complete redesign as the ignore the design rules that the other folders use, and why are the symbols on each folder white except for the Mac folder?
Respectfully, I love how powerful KDE is but my god they can't make things visually consistent to save their lives!
From inconsistent icons, to different KDE apps using wildly different design languages, to padding being inconsistent all throughout the DE and their apps, to fonts and their sizes kinda being all over the place
But at least a custom theme is trivial to install and solves most of it
Now KDE needs to implement a consistent design language for its apps, clean up its settings, and have better defaults. Not asking KDE to copy Gnome, just that it needs a lot more work to be palletable to someone using it for the first time.
Yes, everything will be a folder in plasma 6, including applications, don't worry, you I'll love the new Firefox folder. Its the natural progression of things, don't try to stop it.
Look forward to Plasma 6 where everything will be an application. Downloads folder? That's an application now. A font you just installed? Application. The video you just downloaded? You guessed it
I'm not the most knowledgeable on this subject, but I'm curious to learn more.
Why do various toolkits have major releases that seem to reset the features of the last one?
GTK 3 seems like GTK 2 but slower to me, and before the transition was even complete GTK 4 showed up, which just seems like GTK 3 but a bit different. Qt 5 works really well and is efficient on resources, so why are we switching to Qt 6? It seems like reinventing the desktop over and over again.
I understand updates for the kernel for compatibility, small to medium updates to all software for bug fixes and new features, and major updates to toolkits when there are big problems with the current release (X vs Wayland for example). Or if the current release was unreliable and bloated, which I heard was what happened with Qt 4 and why they switched to 5. But I also heard Qt 3 was really stable and lightweight, so why did they switch away from it?
Usually there's big new features that accomodate more modern hardware better. As an example, Qt6 revamps support for Wayland, HDR, and scaling. Even these things on their own don't seem like much, but if you go back to KDE 5 in 10 years time you'll definitely feel like something is plain/dated (or completely not working if you're on new hardware)
Gtk 3->4 made a lot of internal changes, and at least some were related to making wayland work.
Wayland "worked" in gtk3, however it was very much an afterthought, and half the toolkit was useless under wayland.
Other changes are usually required for changes related to rendering, gtk4 had vulcan rendering which may require some breaking changes.
Another thing is just general breaking changes that are good, sometimes you realise some decision was bad, and a new major release is just a way to make these.
From the end users perspective nothing much changes, it maybe looks a bit different, but not much besides that. But a vulcan renderer and being fully wayland compatible are major improvements that also improve the user experience, even if you don't notice directly.
Usually the problem isn't that the changes are big, but that the new way simply isn't compatible with the old way to do things, and you can't just make a change that will break existing applications in minor versions (well, there's nothing technically stopping you, and unintentional compatibility breaking bugs have definitely happened in the past, but people are gonna get real mad at you if you do that). Even if you break that change up into thousand tiny changes over many minor versions, the end result is that at some point, you break old apps.
The solution is to take note of all the things that are either badly designed or became obsolete and once in a while go "hey, let's make a new major version and fix all of this crap". With a new major version, you don't have to worry about old applications and are free to improve your library in any way you wish, and you also get the option to keep updating the old major version with some maintenance bugfixes so that the old apps keep working well enough.
Still garbage. Why is it so hard for the KDE guys to actually design something simple that makes sense? Starting with proportions and spacing between elements that they seem to be unaware of?
The folder "Notes" and the folder "Library" literally could be anything. There's no way you show that to any user and they guess the name correct.
And this is the problem I have with all of the icons used in menu's throughout KDE. I don't know what the hell they are supposed to be! Even more so as the eyesight gets worse with age.
Seems kinda inconsistent. I'm seeing thin lines, thicc lines, flat, 3d, colored and monochrome all together
The icons don't all speak the same language, true. Some are way more elaborate and detailed than others, which just makes them look off.
Maybe the library could be a single book instead of an entire bookshelf, for example?
There's another icon called "folder-book"
Ah, didn't see that one at first. Even that icon is still too different from the others though, using thinner lines and no fill. Hm
Jesus, it's so inconsistent. I suppose that may be beneficial when looking at all of your folders at a bird's eye view but my knee jerk reaction isn't the most positive.
filled areas and outlined, simple and chaotic... :-)
That looks… really inconsistent
IIRC they refined the Breeze icons over a LONG period of time to get them to the current state - I'm sure the same will be true here.
These are definitely an improvement over the current icons but while some of the design rules are evident, i think a bit of refining is in order.
The games and download folders both need a complete redesign as the ignore the design rules that the other folders use, and why are the symbols on each folder white except for the Mac folder?
...
I'll be sticking with papirus.
not papyrus, I hope
They are... certainly icons. I can't get any more excited than that I'm afraid
Finally designers are realizing it's not 2013 anymore and nobody liked the Win8 designed-in-powerpoint style.
Respectfully, I love how powerful KDE is but my god they can't make things visually consistent to save their lives!
From inconsistent icons, to different KDE apps using wildly different design languages, to padding being inconsistent all throughout the DE and their apps, to fonts and their sizes kinda being all over the place
But at least a custom theme is trivial to install and solves most of it
Interesting. Even though I definitely have some mild form of OCD, I do not have single issue with Breeze defaults look.
This feels like a step back from what we currently have.
Ooh, it really reminds me of newaita reborn which is one of my favorite icon themes. I'm glad they're making it a little less minimal
There are even light and dark wallpapers with transparent version to build your own!
I've seen better designs. But I've also seen worse designs. This is pretty meh.
And I was gonna try out KDE anyway.
Isn't KDE spearheding HDR support for Wayland? And doing a bunch more objectively good/usefull projects like the xwayland video bridge?
I actually quite like the current breeze style with the sharper edges, it sets it apart from other designs.
Looks good to me
Now KDE needs to implement a consistent design language for its apps, clean up its settings, and have better defaults. Not asking KDE to copy Gnome, just that it needs a lot more work to be palletable to someone using it for the first time.
TODO since KDE 3...
I liked old look more. Would prefer to add even more preinstalled icons instead.
My opinion, if possible, just use the Papirus icons by default. It does such a great job of being consistent while giving apps their own look.
Great criticism overall. Yes, it'll be improved.
Why is everything a folder? What does a debian or android folder do?
Yes, everything will be a folder in plasma 6, including applications, don't worry, you I'll love the new Firefox folder. Its the natural progression of things, don't try to stop it.
Everything's previously a file, now everything is a folder
Look forward to Plasma 6 where everything will be an application. Downloads folder? That's an application now. A font you just installed? Application. The video you just downloaded? You guessed it
It's deb, not Debian, so I'd assume it's the icon for .deb files (which are browsable archives).
It folds Debian to prevent Debian prions
Debían no idea... But I guess android could be android studio folders or similar stuff?
Kinda hard to tell with the symbols due to the white on light blue
I'm not the most knowledgeable on this subject, but I'm curious to learn more.
Why do various toolkits have major releases that seem to reset the features of the last one?
GTK 3 seems like GTK 2 but slower to me, and before the transition was even complete GTK 4 showed up, which just seems like GTK 3 but a bit different. Qt 5 works really well and is efficient on resources, so why are we switching to Qt 6? It seems like reinventing the desktop over and over again.
I understand updates for the kernel for compatibility, small to medium updates to all software for bug fixes and new features, and major updates to toolkits when there are big problems with the current release (X vs Wayland for example). Or if the current release was unreliable and bloated, which I heard was what happened with Qt 4 and why they switched to 5. But I also heard Qt 3 was really stable and lightweight, so why did they switch away from it?
Usually there's big new features that accomodate more modern hardware better. As an example, Qt6 revamps support for Wayland, HDR, and scaling. Even these things on their own don't seem like much, but if you go back to KDE 5 in 10 years time you'll definitely feel like something is plain/dated (or completely not working if you're on new hardware)
Thank you for the explanation! What specifically does Qt 6 do that Qt 5 can't do?
Gtk 3->4 made a lot of internal changes, and at least some were related to making wayland work. Wayland "worked" in gtk3, however it was very much an afterthought, and half the toolkit was useless under wayland. Other changes are usually required for changes related to rendering, gtk4 had vulcan rendering which may require some breaking changes. Another thing is just general breaking changes that are good, sometimes you realise some decision was bad, and a new major release is just a way to make these.
From the end users perspective nothing much changes, it maybe looks a bit different, but not much besides that. But a vulcan renderer and being fully wayland compatible are major improvements that also improve the user experience, even if you don't notice directly.
Interesting. I'm guessing the changes were too big to just be added incrementally in updates to GTK 3?
Usually the problem isn't that the changes are big, but that the new way simply isn't compatible with the old way to do things, and you can't just make a change that will break existing applications in minor versions (well, there's nothing technically stopping you, and unintentional compatibility breaking bugs have definitely happened in the past, but people are gonna get real mad at you if you do that). Even if you break that change up into thousand tiny changes over many minor versions, the end result is that at some point, you break old apps.
The solution is to take note of all the things that are either badly designed or became obsolete and once in a while go "hey, let's make a new major version and fix all of this crap". With a new major version, you don't have to worry about old applications and are free to improve your library in any way you wish, and you also get the option to keep updating the old major version with some maintenance bugfixes so that the old apps keep working well enough.
The unfortunate consequence of this is that old working apps need compatibility updates.
This is soooo good
Still garbage. Why is it so hard for the KDE guys to actually design something simple that makes sense? Starting with proportions and spacing between elements that they seem to be unaware of?
default KDE*
but then I don't understand who uses KDE and doesn't kustomize it
I do, i dont feel it looks bad and it works well for me, i used to use themes all the time but i feel the default one is good
At least to me, KDE feels fairly modern
They are not quite aweful, but thank the tao Plasma is customizable and you can set your own icon set.
I have to say, they're certainly an impovement over Breeze, but I still prefer the Oxygen ones
I don't to be teased anymore. I have been looking forward to Plasma 6 for months now.
Looks awesome
Loving the new style. Still a bit of rough edges to polish and can't wait to see them in practice after the finall release in February next year.
Yeah, well, I'm sticking with Kora.
Looks like mountain lion
I want to like KDE but its still way to unstable for me on Fedora. Its probably just a matter of time before its stable enough for daily usage
Nvidia?
No
The folder "Notes" and the folder "Library" literally could be anything. There's no way you show that to any user and they guess the name correct.
And this is the problem I have with all of the icons used in menu's throughout KDE. I don't know what the hell they are supposed to be! Even more so as the eyesight gets worse with age.
This is why I don't use KDE.