Common Images Plugins Skins & Community Skin Project

[McBainUK]

Next on the todo, get user feedback on name ideas?

Maybe an idea to post an announcment asking for testers and feedback. Also include a link to the SkinPlugin - think this would show off the _CommonImage concept and the CommunitySKin.

Ask for artists to submit images/image sets. Also ask for any GBPVR user to make it a true 'Community Skin' by testing and suggesting tweaks to the xml layout.

[MixMan]

We will have 2 versions of plugin skins since I dont agree with Fatman_do on what text definitions should be moved to the baseskin.xml...at this point.
I have 40 ThemePacks to think about also.
So I will have versions of CommonImages skins that have less text moved to baseskin.xml
Every ThemePack needs to be re-worked.
So when Sub releases v0.98, I will remove the ThemePacks from GBPVR wiki.
I will not convert Advisor/Baseskin to CommonImages baseskin.xml or CommonImages naming either, so it will not be compatible with the SkinPlugin.

[McBainUK]

We will have 2 versions of plugin skins since I dont agree with Fatman_do on what text definitions should be moved to the baseskin.xml...at this point.

Where will you be storing these? The CommunitySkinFiles page could do without multiple xmls files.

Every ThemePack needs to be re-worked.

In what way?

[Fatman_do]

We will have 2 versions of plugin skins since I dont agree with Fatman_do on what text definitions should be moved to the baseskin.xml...at this point.

There is nothing about the textstyles currently in the baseskin.xml file that is set in stone. I have mentioned before it is entirely subject to change. Your objection was because these xmls are dependant on a specific baseskin.xml, which is true. The xmls are also dependant on specific image names and locations as well so I don't understand why that is a problem. I want to work through any issues and see what the best way to approach them are. I have been accomodating throughout the entire process haven't I?

I have 40 ThemePacks to think about also.
So I will have versions of CommonImages skins that have less text moved to baseskin.xml
Every ThemePack needs to be re-worked.

I follow this, you don't want to have to redo everything you have done in the past. I understand that and that is reasonable.

So when Sub releases v0.98, I will remove the ThemePacks from GBPVR wiki.
I will not convert Advisor/Baseskin to CommonImages baseskin.xml or CommonImages naming either, so it will not be compatible with the SkinPlugin.

This part I don't understand. If you are not going to change Adivsor/Baseskin to follow any of the CommonImages names, what is the reason for the objection about the textstyles in the baseskin.xml file? None of the Community Skin xml's would be compatible with Advisor anyway.

Is your only objection because of Advisor incompatibility? Sorry, I just am a little confused.

[MixMan]

I agree with McBainUK that it wouldn't be good to have multiple versions of plugin skins standards.
I will have my version on the Advisor skin page.
They will be compatible with the Community skin, but the community skin will not be compatible with the Advisor version of plugin skins. (too much text definitions moved to the baseskin.xml)

I think that CommonImage Plugin skins shall be compatible with all skins here on Wiki, not only Community skin. Perhaps we should have a separate page for vert compatible Compatible Plugin skins.

Most ThemePacks because the most have a "harcoded" install path and because of the new ScreenHeader function. ThemePacks also needs an new CopyTheme.bat so they will be compatible with CommonImages.
I might not remove them, but call the v98 and v97 ThemPacks instread.

[pz1]

Following the discussion from a distance my conclusion as a non technical user is to settle for SUB's Blue skin as the standard. I am getting nervous if I hear words like 'compatible'. In practice it often means that things won't work on your machine and nobody is to blame for it.

But don't let me disrupt your creativity in designing nice skins. This is just an observation from a real oldie...

[MixMan]

Following the discussion from a distance my conclusion as a non technical user is to settle for SUB's Blue skin as the standard. I am getting nervous if I hear words like 'compatible'. In practice it often means that things won't work on your machine and nobody is to blame for it.

But don't let me disrupt your creativity in designing nice skins. This is just an observation from a real oldie...

Thanks for your comment. This is what I am trying to say.
I would like the "basic" CommonImages plugin skin file that can be found on the wiki, be compatible with the Blue skin and all other skins.
This is what the discussion is all about.

FatMan_do can have his own implementation for the Community skin and I can have mine for the Advisor skin, but an end user should be able to download a "basic" skin file and get it working with any skin without editing baseskin XML files.

[Fatman_do]

Thanks for your comment. This is what I am trying to say.
I would like the "basic" CommonImages plugin skin file that can be found on the wiki, be compatible with the Blue skin and all other skins.
This is what the discussion is all about.

FatMan_do can have his own implementation for the Community skin and I can have mine for the Advisor skin, but an end user should be able to download a "basic" skin file and get it working with any skin without editing baseskin XML files.

Beleive it or not, I would like this to be as compatible with blue as possible.
Right now blue does not use any image naming or standard so that automatically is a problem. If a common textsyle definition can be figured out, it could end up being added into blue one day.

Part of the "testing" and research I am doing is so we could offer suggestions that make sense and aren't to narrowly focused. There is already one change that will be made, that if used by all skins, would greatly improve the fall back method. One of the problems with the fall back method is that skins that use "Background.jpg" not in the skin root or want to use "GBPVR Background.png" would have errors under the current method because 'blue' skins are hard-coded to look for background.jpg in the skin root. I suggested a change, explained reasons why it would be a benefit, and sub felt it was a reasonable request. It is a simple "add on" to MixMan's request about the screen name being controlled by the baseskin.xml file. I just suggested "piggybacking" the background image into the "screen header", and changing its name to "screen background".

The more testing and working together that is done, the more likely changes that are genuine improvements can be made.

[MixMan]

Beleive it or not, I would like this to be as compatible with blue as possible.
Right now blue does not use any image naming or standard so that automatically is a problem. If a common textsyle definition can be figured out, it could end up being added into blue one day.

Part of the "testing" and research I am doing is so we could offer suggestions that make sense and aren't to narrowly focused. There is already one change that will be made, that if used by all skins, would greatly improve the fall back method. One of the problems with the fall back method is that skins that use "Background.jpg" not in the skin root or want to use "GBPVR Background.png" would have errors under the current method because 'blue' skins are hard-coded to look for background.jpg in the skin root. I suggested a change, explained reasons why it would be a benefit, and sub felt it was a reasonable request. It is a simple "add on" to MixMan's request about the screen name being controlled by the baseskin.xml file. I just suggested "piggybacking" the background image into the "screen header", and changing its name to "screen background".

The more testing and working together that is done, the more likely changes that are genuine improvements can be made.

I agree, we need to get a dialog with Sub, regarding these "issues" that we having. Sub is the "key" to a lot of things.