- Inkscape Docs - Inkscape Mailman

holiday graphics for website?
by brynn 22 Dec '17

22 Dec '17

Hi Friends, I'm thinking about starting a tradition of making holiday graphics for the website. Like for example, today I spiffed up the logo for Inkscape Community with some lights (not twinkling, but maybe next year ;-p ). https://forum.inkscapecommunity.com/index.php I'm thinking of just something small and simple like that. Holly and berries, or something. We couldn't do exactly the same thing on the website, because the logo doesn't work the same way as IC. (plus it's pretty small) But there must be some ways to easily slip in some extra graphics into the website? Like maybe in the menu/navigation bar? (could they be red and green? or look like snow is piled on them?) Or the white space between the logo on the top-left and the search field on the right? I saw that cute Inkscape logo with a santa hat in the gallery (https://inkscape.org/en/~jiawhein/%E2%98%85inkscape-logo-christmas), and that's what got me started. But unfortunately, it has a solid white background, which I don't think could be used for the site. I requested either SVG or a transparent PNG, but no answer yet. I made some sort of straight lines of lights, one of which might fit in the white space at the top. But alone, they're hardly creative. Anyway, if someone could explain what those ways might be, where we could sneak in some cute graphics around holidays, I'll take the responsibility to put out a call for such graphics before each major holiday.....or maybe just 4 seasons? Or maybe holidays plus 4 seasons? (I still want to see more graphics on the site, in general. But that's a much bigger project which I can't take a leadership role right now. Well, not unless someone else wants to co-leader it?) Thanks for comments :-) All best, brynn

2 2

too many hidden images? (moderation)
by brynn 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

Hi Friends, Does everyone see the hidden images placeholders in the gallery? Or is it only moderators who see them? If it's only moderators who see it, it's not as big of a problem as I thought. But if everyone sees them, those who usually view the Last Updated page of the gallery have probably noticed, we have more hidden images than not, on the first page. This has 2 sources (aside from the spam itself) -- (1) not enough moderators, and (2) decided items are retained for a week. I can't remember the reason for this. But I can think of a couple of ways to improve the situation. Could we consider not retaining decided items so long? Maybe only 2 or 3 days? Maybe not at all? Or maybe could we only retain those approved items, and let deleted items go? As far as I understand, once an item is deleted, it's gone from the database and can't be recovered. So I'm not sure why we hold them on the moderation page. Would there be any problem posting a call for new moderators in forums? I think I will post another call for mods on the mailing list. But I'm not sure there would be any interested people from forums. I guess it can't hurt? Comments? Thanks for any comments :-) brynn

2 3

volunteer moderators needed
by brynn 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

Hi Friends, If anyone is interested, we still need more moderators for the website gallery. It doesn't usually take very much time. I'd estimate no more than a half an hour per week. (Preferably spread out 5 or 10 minutes each for 3 or 4 days per week. But at this point, once a week would help.) And Martin has built us a wonderful system where the burden of deleting an image or removing member doesn't fall all on one person. Typically it takes 2 moderators to decide the fate of a reported image or member. If interested, please visit this page, (https://inkscape.org/en/*moderators) and click the button which I think says something like "Join this team." After that, I'll contact you with details to get you started. All best, brynn

1 0

Adding extensions api docs
by Mois 14 Nov '17

14 Nov '17

Hey all, this is a continuation of a thread regarding extensions documentation in general, but I am starting a new thread due to the slightly different focus. I made changes that add the python sources to doxygen generation. This is already somewhat useful, because it is easy to see class methods with arguments at a glance. Also made a doxygen 'subpage' for the python extensions, linking to some common classes in the extensions directory. (note: some input on this list is welcome) Now, this is really nice, but has one downside - the Classes list and the Namespaces list contain python and c++ documentation all mixed up. Does anyone think it is a problem? In my opinion, there are enough tools at hand to find the necessary documentation - e.g. seach, the "Inkscape Source Code Documentation" subpage, the files list (which is separated because the extensions and core code are in different directories). I'd like to know whether any c++ devs would be irked by this. Otherwise, I'll just submit a pull request. It is also a possibility to create a new Doxyfile and output the extension docs in a separate directory. In a sense it 'feels right' for all documentation to be in one place, though. Any thoughts? Regards, Mois

3 6

Extensions guide
by unknown＠example.com 07 Nov '17

07 Nov '17

Hi, I wrote an extension a few years ago, and just updated it this weekend. When reading through the docuemntation I saw that you're looking for someone to write/flesh out the extension guide. I'd like to give it a try. I have experience with with inkscape and python both, not so much with ruby and perl. I have not found any docs for simpletransform, simplestyle, and inkex so I read trough them. They are pretty easy to understand, but it would be nice if there were some deatails about them on the wiki, not just articles using them. matyilona

5 15

member name isn't a link (gallery)
by brynn 05 Nov '17

05 Nov '17

Hi Friends, Just checking out this recent upload: https://inkscape.org/en/~jay.hale/%E2%98%85heel-horse+0 How does it happen that the....well sort of a byline....isn't a link, and is not the name of the member who uploaded it. Even when I find the member in the breadcrumbs/path (jay.hale) I don't see that name as a nickname or something. It's no big deal. I'm just curious :-) Same member has another image (flagged) and it's "by name" is a 3rd different name. I just don't see how that can be done? Must be some option that I've never used. Thanks, brynn

2 2

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by Martin Owens 02 Nov '17

02 Nov '17

On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:49 +0100, C R wrote: > On second thought, I'd take this down: > > https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music > > Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's > clearly taken from another website. Getty is the company behind iStock Images, this image searched via TinEye (which I highly recommend to anyone doing moderation on images) shows the images was uploaded[1] in 2013 by BlackJack3D. > I'd take this one down too: > https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581 > -8475381764676214363-n > > Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name, > and they have not responded to your question. This is a ceramic tile from San Juan[2] so very likely not made in Inkscape, the email address for the store is ducart at yahoo, where as the user on inkscape.org is an aol address. > And I'd take this one down as well: > https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-wor > ld2 > Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of > the original you pointed to. The law is very clear when it gives people right to parody and create these kinds of cultural commentary works. We take stuff like this down on request from the original copyright holders only. BUT. This work is still not an original work. It was drawn by Menselijke Christen in 2014 using Coral Draw and Illustrator[3]. So it should be taken down on grounds that it's not an Inkscape work and wasn't made by the user > Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof > that poster has the right to license it that way. > > No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website. Generally no. If I draw something infringing, that different to if I copy an image from where else. There's at least a creative step to drawing things which we should be up for defending under grounds of free speech until asked to take it down. Best Regards, Martin Owens 1. http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/music-in-the-heart-gm171271203-2008 0753 2. http://www.mipequenosanjuan.com/puertorican-decorative-tiles.html 3. https://nl.dreamstime.com/redactionele-stock-afbeelding-held-en-jesu s-image66927814s-image66927814

3 10

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by brynn 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Hhm....Yes, believe me, I do a lot of 2nd thinking about this stuff! And fortunately, thanks to Martin, we have the kind of moderation system where one person doesn't carry the entire responsibility. Images are voted up or down (sort of like reality tv haha), and it's possible to even discuss within the system. Thanks Martin! -----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:49 AM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' On second thought, I'd take this down: https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's clearly taken from another website. I'd take this one down too: https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-84753… Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name, and they have not responded to your question. And I'd take this one down as well: https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of the original you pointed to. Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof that poster has the right to license it that way. No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website. Just a few more thoughts. -C On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: > Hi Friends, > I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since > it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not > assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. > > A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the > gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided not > to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - > https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) > > Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images > which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So far, > I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a > discussion, rather than assume. > > Here are a couple of recent examples: > > -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- > https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music > > -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 > (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites > (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with > the same basic image (and this exact image here: > https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/…) > -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) > > --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n > > To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I have > reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be handled? > I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the > member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, > ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of > course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt? > > I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random > images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never > come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 > frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) But > it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these > things. > > Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) > > All best, > brynn > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-devel mailing list > Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by brynn 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

Thanks for your comments, C R. I probably won't change much, if anything, about the way I handle these images. Not without a larger outcry from the community. But when you see one of these images, imagine that I'm shaking my fist and muttering under my breath (like Snoopy !#@&%!$*!!) If we started removing the "could have been" it would start approaching the point where some automated process would be helpful. But for now, there's no burden. Thanks again, brynn -----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:58 PM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' Maybe Martin could add a flagging system ti the galleries. Something that automatically sends a notification to the poster about a suspicious post. They then have x days to respond. If they don't the post is auto-deleted. This may save you some time, and will let the poster plead their case as it were without you having to follow up on it. Just a thought. -C On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:56 PM, C R <cajhne@...2...> wrote: > Hey Brynn. > I'd say if it gets to the point where it's diluting the awesome, maybe > do it in bulk. :) > Until then, I think we all trust your judgement, and appreciate your > help with it. Please do whatever you think is best. > > I agree with all your points. :) > > Re: 100% inkscape... I'm not sure what that means :) I use Inkscape in > Tandem with GIMP all the time, back and forth for example. I doubt > very much if people use Inkscape and illustrator together, but who > knows. Again, I trust your judgement on it. As long as Inkscape is > being used as a graphics tool, I think we should allow posting. If > someone is blatantly abusing our galleries to advertise their > non-Inkscape art, then it's probably a good enough reason to delete > them. > > Not sure if the above is all that helpful, but thanks for your > thoughts and help with all of it. > > -C > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: >> Thanks for your comments, C R. >> >>> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour >> >> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. >> >> Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing. For the image I did search, >> there was no scouring. It was the first result of the first search I made. >> It was clear enough for me just to look at the image. But I searched it out >> just to prove my suspicion. (It's the only time I've done that.) >> >> For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first. If it >> could have been....why not. But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is >> because >> >> (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space. >> >> (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually >> how I catch them. If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my >> experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.) >> >> (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities. I'm afraid it >> gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images. >> >> (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images. It >> kind of dilutes the pool of awesome. >> >> I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an >> Inkscape-only gallery. To me, THAT would be amazing! And to me, that's >> what the website should provide. >> >> I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By >> option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that? Because >> I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which >> Inkscape was used only for part of it. But maybe it would be nice to have >> the "all Inkscape" images easier to find? >> >> Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern >> for the community. But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why >> maybe it should be. >> >> Thanks again :-) >> brynn >> >> -----Original Message----- From: C R >> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM >> To: brynn >> Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel >> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' >> >> >> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour >> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. >> >> I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least >> similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite >> stunning and not really hurting anyone. >> >> Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how >> it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will >> inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future. >> >> Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could >> have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we >> can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was. >> >> Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment, >> saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it >> without having to make any guesses. :) >> >> Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight >> against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much >> more usable and clutter free for everyone. >> >> >> -C >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Friends, >>> I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since >>> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not >>> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. >>> >>> A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the >>> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided >>> not >>> to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - >>> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) >>> >>> Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are >>> images >>> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So >>> far, >>> I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a >>> discussion, rather than assume. >>> >>> Here are a couple of recent examples: >>> >>> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- >>> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music >>> >>> -- >>> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 >>> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites >>> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with >>> the same basic image (and this exact image here: >>> >>> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/…) >>> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) >>> >>> >>> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n >>> >>> To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I >>> have >>> reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be >>> handled? >>> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the >>> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, >>> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of >>> course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our >>> doubt? >>> >>> I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random >>> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never >>> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 >>> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) >>> But >>> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting >>> these >>> things. >>> >>> Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) >>> >>> All best, >>> brynn >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Inkscape-devel mailing list >>> Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >> >>

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by brynn 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

Thanks for your comments, C R. > Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing. For the image I did search, there was no scouring. It was the first result of the first search I made. It was clear enough for me just to look at the image. But I searched it out just to prove my suspicion. (It's the only time I've done that.) For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first. If it could have been....why not. But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is because (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space. (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually how I catch them. If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.) (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities. I'm afraid it gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images. (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images. It kind of dilutes the pool of awesome. I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an Inkscape-only gallery. To me, THAT would be amazing! And to me, that's what the website should provide. I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that? Because I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which Inkscape was used only for part of it. But maybe it would be nice to have the "all Inkscape" images easier to find? Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern for the community. But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why maybe it should be. Thanks again :-) brynn -----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite stunning and not really hurting anyone. Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future. Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was. Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment, saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it without having to make any guesses. :) Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much more usable and clutter free for everyone. -C On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: > Hi Friends, > I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since > it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not > assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. > > A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the > gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided not > to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - > https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) > > Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images > which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So far, > I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a > discussion, rather than assume. > > Here are a couple of recent examples: > > -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- > https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music > > -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 > (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites > (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with > the same basic image (and this exact image here: > https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/…) > -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) > > --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n > > To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I have > reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be handled? > I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the > member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, > ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of > course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt? > > I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random > images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never > come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 > frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) But > it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these > things. > > Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) > > All best, > brynn > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-devel mailing list > Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

2 2