I do think that as a store it should have some guidelines on quality, but not of the application icon’s styling
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”
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
+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
It makes it clear that they’re guidelines and not requirements. I’m not sure how styling is inappropriate.
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.
People erroneously conflate modern and flat. Flat is used as a bogeyman.
Plenty of old icons are flat, and modern icons are moving away from flatness. The GNOME-y icon they showcase is clearly 3D, and multiple flat ones they show they state they disapprove of - 3/4 of these are flat and disapproved of.
Saying “ideally, app icons should give the impression that the app is actively maintained, not an abandoned mid-2000s project” doesn’t mean “make it flat or else”
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.
quite rare L brodie take there
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.
