Opinions on the flathub metadata guidelines?
Opinions on the flathub metadata guidelines?
For the quick guidelines for the actual content (descriptions, screenshots), see the Appstream docs.
I do think that as a store it should have some guidelines on quality, but not of the application icon's styling
Icon design and name guidelines are too strict. Many apps already on the store break them.
- E.g. the 20 characters limit is to small for even two long words.
- Or not allowing PascalCase, disallows many app names like LibreOffice.
And app icons have to be "In line with contemporary styles", which is currently flat and simple design. Contemporary styles change all the time. If an app wants to look old, why not let them?
https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/appdata-guidelines/quality-guidelines/#app-icon
Someone on the internet with their opinion on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYqYpbMY9vE
Edit: Generally these guidelines are good and will improve the browsing experience on flathub. Hopefully they'll loosen some of those icon and naming restrictions.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=kYqYpbMY9vE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
quite rare L brodie take there
It makes it clear that they're guidelines and not requirements. I'm not sure how styling is inappropriate.
It's a guide, it's there to guide you, not to break your knees if you don't follow it all the way
Flatten your icon or they will flatten your life expectancy. /s
I like the guidelines. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind a few more. Other app stores have WAY more requirements for art assets and metadata.
The first time I made a mobile app (many years ago when I was basically an amateur), I was like, “What the hell? I have to make all these icon sizes?” But it was good for me to be forced to comply with professional standards. I don’t think Flathub should go the Apple route and require everything be just so but, as annoying as it may be at the time, it’s good practice and it’s good for the wider Linux desktop ecosystem.
I don't exactly mind guidelines! i just really dislike the styling ones, regarding favoriting flat design
Favoring modern design on the icons is good. It doesn't state that it has to be flat, it just says that it should at least follow some modern design guidelines so that the app doesn't send the impression of being an older, unmaintained thing.
If I find an app in Flathub that has an icon that looks like it was made 20 years ago I'm shocked when it ends up using modern frameworks. I think Inkscape and GIMP are the only examples that comes to mind.
Some of the icons they say are good aren't flat though, they feature 3D shading and clearly show depth.
Take that GNOME-y looking one for example. It looks modern, but the workbench, screwdriver, spanner, and hammer all have shading and depth. They are 3D objects. The genie-lamp icon looks far flatter, and that was disapproved of.
Flat and modern aren't really the same thing. There are old flat designs, and plenty of modern icon designs are slowly becoming more 3D again.
Permanently Deleted
Realistically if you have light and dark you should include a screenshot of both.
Screenshots shouldn't be optional, and if dark and light themes are provided in the app, then show both. It'll help users decide to try out the app. In my opinion, a lack luster presentation will discourage potential users.
I do lean towards the guidelines being enforced. As a user, it'll give me more confidence in flatpaks.
uh...sorry, wasn't my intention to make the post come out that way.
Permanently Deleted
Counterpoint: I prefer it the way you've done it.
Although I do not like a title of a statement with a question mark glued on. This is a pet peeve of mine. You could ask "is flatpak's icon style guide too strict?", though Betteridge's law of headlines says the answer is no.
The whole point of that is make it clear that the dark mode of the app isn't its default state. It doesn't say "dark theme bad", it clearly says just that the screenshots shouldn't only be in dark mode.
That dark theme screenshot is bad and light theme is good is nuts because if theme is important you provide a 50/50 screenshot showing off the themes.
I don't think that was the point, it says "Having some screenshots to show off that e.g. dark style is supported is fine."
If you look at the screenshot, it shows the app using a weird font, as well as non-default header bar buttons. That's the main area of contention. Screenshots showing weird fonts, non-standard window additions, custom themes, aren't recommended.
Showing the app supports dark mode is completely fine.
For the most part I really like this, tbh. I see lots of bad/janky looking stuff on Flathub and it's good to have these guidelines.
Like, I look for an app, see an icon that looks like it was made on ms paint in 2002, screenshots showing not just the app but also the desktop background that looks like an old Gnome 2 desktop.
Stuff like that instantly raises alarm bells in my head and makes me think "this app isn't maintained and this store is full of junk just like the MS store"
+1 for suggesting karl marx as a lorem ipsum user profile lmao.
most of it is okay, but I do think it was a bit rude to basically call out a bunch of app devs for their icon styles, and suggest theyre updated for "modern styles", but other than that I'm not against their own repo wanting to have some polished metadata
My opinion is pretty much the same. The guidelines for naming and screenshot are great, and it would have been good if they were applied in all stores, not just FlatHub. The icon guidelines, on the other hand, are too much, IMO.
Yeah, this is... Not great.
"Yeah, just download LibreOffice from flathub. No, you need to have a space in it. Yes, that's the one; I know the icon is wrong."
And, quite frankly, I don't know how they think they'll get away with requiring specific icon styles. Big software companies tend to be very protective over their brand recognition. And small indie shops tend to host not have the resources to remake their icon every time Google decides to roll out a new fashion sense.
There's also the security issue of not allowing apps to present themselves in a way that people recognise. How do I trust I've got the legitimate version of an app?
I know it's "just a guideline", but that's a dogwhistle for "do this or we'll hide your package".
Nice
I think it's a good start but some of them are kinda over doing it.