The Skin Patch Debate
Monday, February 24, 2003 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
There is a new technology being developed but its eventual available form will be heavily dependent on the input of thousands of users such as you.
Each year, thousands of skins are created and released. Skins take many many hours to create. But often times, once released, they are never updated. As the software for these skins gains in function, these skins come to look outdated and are no longer used. The proposed answer: Skin patching.
Please read this next part carefully: What Skin patching does is allow third parties to submit updates to an existing skin. But these updates do not contain any parts from the original skins. Instead, they only contain the pieces that have been updated. Or in other words, patches are completely seperate files in themselves. The actual "patching" takes place in software. It would download the original skin and then the updates would be provided as additional sub-styles. If the user applies one of those sub-styles, the program the original skin and then includes the updates when it applies.
For example, let's say someone created a really nice WindowBlinds skin in 2001. But this skin doesn't support Windows XP Start bars, doesn't support the task panel (shellstyle), doesn't support the slider control nor does it support the logon/logoff dialog skinning.
Five different users could submit "patches" to this skin.
Patch 1 would just have the task panel (shellstyle).
Patch 2 would just be the logon/logoff dialog skinning
Patch 3 would have the have the XP Start bar
Patch 4 would have the slider control
Patch 5 would be another rendition of the task panel and it would have the XP Start bar and the logon/logoff skinning.
On a site like WinCustomize (or any other site that supported this technology), when the user chose to download the skin, it would bring up a dialog asking which patches (if any) a user would like to also download.
Once downloaded, when the user went to apply the skin it would bring up a dialog asking which patches they would like to apply. The updates would be displayed to user by widget (so patch 5 contains 3 widgets whereas the others are 1 widget each) to choose which pieces to use.
In this way, older skins could be updated by fans and the original effort to create the skin would be rewarded by keeping the skin fresh and new over the long term.
So where is the debate? How much say should the skin author have? WinCustomize is known for being very protective of skin author rights. But there is the conflict in wanting skin authors work to be kept useful and worthwhile over the long run. Obviously any skin patch that used the original author's graphics would need express written consent. But what about skin patches that don't use any of the graphics from the original skin? I.e. a Shellstyle wouldn't need graphics from the original skin and neither would an XP Start bar. Additionally, what policies should be by default?
Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the skin). Additionally, it believes that original author should have the right to reject individual skin patches from being displayed. But there is also the matter on what the default is. By default, should skin patches be allowed on skins where the author is long gone? Stardock's view is presently that skin patches on those skins would be allowed based on the discretion of the moderator and if the original author returns they can then change the setting if they so choose. This way, the thousands of existing skins can gain a second life and it is Stardock's view that the vast majority of MIA skin authors would prefer that. Moderators would still reject any skin patch that used artwork from the original skin without express written consent however.
What's your view?
Each year, thousands of skins are created and released. Skins take many many hours to create. But often times, once released, they are never updated. As the software for these skins gains in function, these skins come to look outdated and are no longer used. The proposed answer: Skin patching.
Please read this next part carefully: What Skin patching does is allow third parties to submit updates to an existing skin. But these updates do not contain any parts from the original skins. Instead, they only contain the pieces that have been updated. Or in other words, patches are completely seperate files in themselves. The actual "patching" takes place in software. It would download the original skin and then the updates would be provided as additional sub-styles. If the user applies one of those sub-styles, the program the original skin and then includes the updates when it applies.
For example, let's say someone created a really nice WindowBlinds skin in 2001. But this skin doesn't support Windows XP Start bars, doesn't support the task panel (shellstyle), doesn't support the slider control nor does it support the logon/logoff dialog skinning.
Five different users could submit "patches" to this skin.
Patch 1 would just have the task panel (shellstyle).
Patch 2 would just be the logon/logoff dialog skinning
Patch 3 would have the have the XP Start bar
Patch 4 would have the slider control
Patch 5 would be another rendition of the task panel and it would have the XP Start bar and the logon/logoff skinning.
On a site like WinCustomize (or any other site that supported this technology), when the user chose to download the skin, it would bring up a dialog asking which patches (if any) a user would like to also download.
Once downloaded, when the user went to apply the skin it would bring up a dialog asking which patches they would like to apply. The updates would be displayed to user by widget (so patch 5 contains 3 widgets whereas the others are 1 widget each) to choose which pieces to use.
In this way, older skins could be updated by fans and the original effort to create the skin would be rewarded by keeping the skin fresh and new over the long term.
So where is the debate? How much say should the skin author have? WinCustomize is known for being very protective of skin author rights. But there is the conflict in wanting skin authors work to be kept useful and worthwhile over the long run. Obviously any skin patch that used the original author's graphics would need express written consent. But what about skin patches that don't use any of the graphics from the original skin? I.e. a Shellstyle wouldn't need graphics from the original skin and neither would an XP Start bar. Additionally, what policies should be by default?
Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the skin). Additionally, it believes that original author should have the right to reject individual skin patches from being displayed. But there is also the matter on what the default is. By default, should skin patches be allowed on skins where the author is long gone? Stardock's view is presently that skin patches on those skins would be allowed based on the discretion of the moderator and if the original author returns they can then change the setting if they so choose. This way, the thousands of existing skins can gain a second life and it is Stardock's view that the vast majority of MIA skin authors would prefer that. Moderators would still reject any skin patch that used artwork from the original skin without express written consent however.
What's your view?
 |
|
Page 6 of 9 | |
|
|---|
pjpowell
Reply #102 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:15 PM
Reply #102 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:15 PM
Actually Paxx it's usally better to ask after you have the finished article or at least a mock up of it. In your scenario it would be too late for adni to cancel his permission. If you were unscrupulous you already have his permission and could upload it wherever you liked no matter how bad it sucked with his permission text attached.
paxx
Reply #104 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:26 PM
Reply #104 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:26 PM
Peff: That IS what is currently done.
I was answering to a question asking how it was done currently.
pjpowell: I say let the old skins die if its original author dispeared and cannot be reached. Not assume that if he's gone, then he can't disagree.
But personnally, I must say I would hesitate to give someone permission to update an old skin of mine. Not that anyone would want to in the first place, mind you. Dunno. It'd be too weird. I don't mind people porting to another app, but actually updating a old skin? Dunno. I'd have to think about it, and it would highly depends who is asking.
I was answering to a question asking how it was done currently.
pjpowell: I say let the old skins die if its original author dispeared and cannot be reached. Not assume that if he's gone, then he can't disagree.
But personnally, I must say I would hesitate to give someone permission to update an old skin of mine. Not that anyone would want to in the first place, mind you. Dunno. It'd be too weird. I don't mind people porting to another app, but actually updating a old skin? Dunno. I'd have to think about it, and it would highly depends who is asking.
pjpowell
Reply #105 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:30 PM
Reply #105 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:30 PM
paxx: apologies. misunderstood. I agree. Updating without permission is not cool.
DavidK
Reply #106 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:37 PM
Reply #106 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:37 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm about to start updating a skin right now that is almost 4 years old. It never got scrollbars or a lot of other features. If this skin was patched to have a shell styles and an XP taskbar, I don't see how it could be done without using the original graphics. It wouldn't match because there are textures in the skin that would have to be used. If the patched skin were installed it would still have no scrollbars, mouse-overs etc.
Updating this skin for me will involve re-doing everything, the buttons, making scroll and progress bar and probably redesigning much of the skin. The explorer and dialog backgrounds, some of the functions, and most of the graphics will all be redone to make it a "modern" skin. A patch would not improve the skin itself in any way so it would still be less desirable to use than a new skin.
Maybe this is a bad example because the skin is before WB2 in features. I know Allen Bond's work would fall in that category though. I've done an update on his Ampulla skin to use on my own system to add some mouse-overs and scroll/progress bars. That skin, or any of his, in order to be patched, would have to be done with the original graphics and would also need the WB2 features added to the skin itself.
Updating this skin for me will involve re-doing everything, the buttons, making scroll and progress bar and probably redesigning much of the skin. The explorer and dialog backgrounds, some of the functions, and most of the graphics will all be redone to make it a "modern" skin. A patch would not improve the skin itself in any way so it would still be less desirable to use than a new skin.
Maybe this is a bad example because the skin is before WB2 in features. I know Allen Bond's work would fall in that category though. I've done an update on his Ampulla skin to use on my own system to add some mouse-overs and scroll/progress bars. That skin, or any of his, in order to be patched, would have to be done with the original graphics and would also need the WB2 features added to the skin itself.
DavidK
Reply #108 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:02 PM
Reply #108 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:02 PM
I think the skinners that have responded to this so far are unanimous on the opt-in side. If only because the patch, in most cases, would have to use the skin's original graphics.
I like the fact that a skin, once updated, would still be in its original state. The patches being a separate file from another person makes it less objectionable than re-releasing the skin under another name. I also like the fact that there could be several patches by different people for a single skin.
However... If people are not using the feature built in to WB4 that allows you to pick a shell styles and an XP set from another skin, would they use the patches? If they were using the WB4 feature would patches be necessary?
Although I think the patches are a great idea, Nikos' and paxx's points are very good. It could become a new "wallpapers" category where beginners do a mediocre job making a patch for a forgotten masterpiece. That would require moderation. So now you would have two people involved in approving the work, the original artist and the moderator. Plus it would involve downloading the original skin and applying the patch and communicating with both parties. A process far more laborious than how we currently moderate skins.
I do believe if it were implemented it would be a benefit for everyone and we'd all get used to it and figure out how to make it work.
I like the fact that a skin, once updated, would still be in its original state. The patches being a separate file from another person makes it less objectionable than re-releasing the skin under another name. I also like the fact that there could be several patches by different people for a single skin.
However... If people are not using the feature built in to WB4 that allows you to pick a shell styles and an XP set from another skin, would they use the patches? If they were using the WB4 feature would patches be necessary?
Although I think the patches are a great idea, Nikos' and paxx's points are very good. It could become a new "wallpapers" category where beginners do a mediocre job making a patch for a forgotten masterpiece. That would require moderation. So now you would have two people involved in approving the work, the original artist and the moderator. Plus it would involve downloading the original skin and applying the patch and communicating with both parties. A process far more laborious than how we currently moderate skins.
I do believe if it were implemented it would be a benefit for everyone and we'd all get used to it and figure out how to make it work.
Jafo
Reply #109 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:11 PM
Reply #109 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:11 PM
Sometimes I look back fondly to the time of the Community Skin projects, and how many skinners worked together to create a whole series of works essentially from the one, single graphic origin.
DavidK's concerns that to properly update a skin requires quite extensive reworking just my be the stumbling block that makes 'patching' less than successful for many of the skins that most need it.
We could get to the stage where there was little intrinsic difference between skinner no.2 'patching' an add-on, or skinner no.2 totally remaking an existing skin belonging to skinner no.1.
Could there not just be an additional category on the skinning sites for 'reworked skins', where conventional approval was sought as usual.
That way there could be, for example...
In the 'main' section...'Sputnik' by treetog
In the reworked section...'treetog's Sputnik' by paxx...etc.
Essentially you end up with the same result....updated skins.
Perhaps another section 'skins requiring completion/addition'....
DavidK's concerns that to properly update a skin requires quite extensive reworking just my be the stumbling block that makes 'patching' less than successful for many of the skins that most need it.
We could get to the stage where there was little intrinsic difference between skinner no.2 'patching' an add-on, or skinner no.2 totally remaking an existing skin belonging to skinner no.1.
Could there not just be an additional category on the skinning sites for 'reworked skins', where conventional approval was sought as usual.
That way there could be, for example...
In the 'main' section...'Sputnik' by treetog
In the reworked section...'treetog's Sputnik' by paxx...etc.
Essentially you end up with the same result....updated skins.
Perhaps another section 'skins requiring completion/addition'....
DavidK
Reply #111 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:16 PM
Reply #111 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:16 PM
btw - I mean no insult to wallpapers in the above comment. As a moderator you get a different perspective on them as a category because most people start out making wallpapers rather than skins and we get tons of them that never make it to the library. The ratio of rejected wallpapers to rejected skins would be thousands to one...
forgive me... I probably dig my hole deeper...
forgive me... I probably dig my hole deeper...
Jafo
Reply #112 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:17 PM
Reply #112 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:17 PM
Dave...perhaps it only need be 'moderated' by the original author, and only go through the site admins for 'formal' legality....porn, etc...
Surj
Reply #113 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:58 PM
Reply #113 Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:58 PM
i think if you allow the original author upon submission to decide whether or not they want to have full control or allow users to freely submit changes, there would be no problem and would be a wonderful system.
DavidK
Reply #114 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:01 PM
Reply #114 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:01 PM
Jafo, that sounds like no different than how we do it now...
I went back to the original post because I'm getting confused now about what is really being proposed.
________________________________________________
from post#1
Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the skin). Additionally, it believes that original author should have the right to reject individual skin patches from being displayed. But there is also the matter on what the default is. By default, should skin patches be allowed on skins where the author is long gone? Stardock's view is presently that skin patches on those skins would be allowed based on the discretion of the moderator and if the original author returns they can then change the setting if they so choose.
________________________________________________
also, the patches would install themselves into the skin on a user's computer so selecting the skin would select the patch with it.
The real question is should the patches be turned ON by default or be turned OFF by default. In the download section at Wincustomize that is. Obviously, an author who is 'long gone' will probaly never return to authorize this new feature. Do we leave his work out of this update to Windowblinds? It looks like either way the patches would be moderated.
I went back to the original post because I'm getting confused now about what is really being proposed.
________________________________________________
from post#1
Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the skin). Additionally, it believes that original author should have the right to reject individual skin patches from being displayed. But there is also the matter on what the default is. By default, should skin patches be allowed on skins where the author is long gone? Stardock's view is presently that skin patches on those skins would be allowed based on the discretion of the moderator and if the original author returns they can then change the setting if they so choose.
________________________________________________
also, the patches would install themselves into the skin on a user's computer so selecting the skin would select the patch with it.
The real question is should the patches be turned ON by default or be turned OFF by default. In the download section at Wincustomize that is. Obviously, an author who is 'long gone' will probaly never return to authorize this new feature. Do we leave his work out of this update to Windowblinds? It looks like either way the patches would be moderated.
DavidK
Reply #115 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:07 PM
Reply #115 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:07 PM
Another thought... since the plan is to have this feature available on all sites that would support it, wouldn't an artist who wanted to reject a patch then have to do so on each site his work is posted on? Could be a source of aggravation to some artists and some site admins... In this case I would definitely think it should be an opt-in feature where the permissions would apply across all sites. In other words, the skin itself would activate the feature with some code in the UIS file, or something like that.
IPlural
Reply #116 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:17 PM
Reply #116 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:17 PM
andi18, for sure it is, but I am thinking more along the lines of taking on skinning in pieces as you do for say, Network Administration, you don't just jump into it. You have Networking technologies, NOS enviornments, PC hardware, etc..
It's like this, for me at least, maybe it is because of being dissoid? not sure, but.
I can pretty much remodel a house with hlep with the work of course, but I can go into a home, speak with the people and find out what it is they want, and what they will need to get there.
I actually started working summers for my brothers construction company at 14, doing specific tasks until I could do them in my sleep. Then I would progress to something(s) new, while also continuing to do those things I had mastered. etc...
I amnot saying anyway is better than another, but for myself and some others most likely, such a thing would in fact be a better track into skinning and such.
That is why different corporations that provide certification programs have normal calsses, CBT's online, Boot camps, etc.
My point was/is that having the patch process there opens another avenue for people starting out....
in a nut shell
It's like this, for me at least, maybe it is because of being dissoid? not sure, but.
I can pretty much remodel a house with hlep with the work of course, but I can go into a home, speak with the people and find out what it is they want, and what they will need to get there.
I actually started working summers for my brothers construction company at 14, doing specific tasks until I could do them in my sleep. Then I would progress to something(s) new, while also continuing to do those things I had mastered. etc...
I amnot saying anyway is better than another, but for myself and some others most likely, such a thing would in fact be a better track into skinning and such.
That is why different corporations that provide certification programs have normal calsses, CBT's online, Boot camps, etc.
My point was/is that having the patch process there opens another avenue for people starting out....
in a nut shell
IPlural
Reply #117 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:30 PM
Reply #117 Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:30 PM
I dunno...
I'll opt-out the convo because I really do not fit the situation when I consider the fact I have yet to even attemp a simple taskbar let alone a skin
So like when I was working for Mike years back, I'll cloe my mouth and open my ears and eyes and pick through things to find the things that fit together
I'll opt-out the convo because I really do not fit the situation when I consider the fact I have yet to even attemp a simple taskbar let alone a skin
So like when I was working for Mike years back, I'll cloe my mouth and open my ears and eyes and pick through things to find the things that fit together
Jafo
Reply #118 Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:03 PM
Reply #118 Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:03 PM
I think it will all boil down to one simple question.
Opt in, or opt out.
No matter how it is phrased/worded/argued/legitimized, 'opt in' is the ONLY correct course for genuine protection of an author's copyright, whether the skin graphics are used or not, or even just the skin name is used and absolutely nothing else.
In my mind, 'opting out' would be like saying...'oh, no-one was around so I figured this car didn't belong to anyone so I took it for myself.'
'Opting in' would be akin to 'Hi, you don't appear to need/want that car...can I have it?'
There MUST always be an opportunity to say 'No'....
Opt in, or opt out.
No matter how it is phrased/worded/argued/legitimized, 'opt in' is the ONLY correct course for genuine protection of an author's copyright, whether the skin graphics are used or not, or even just the skin name is used and absolutely nothing else.
In my mind, 'opting out' would be like saying...'oh, no-one was around so I figured this car didn't belong to anyone so I took it for myself.'
'Opting in' would be akin to 'Hi, you don't appear to need/want that car...can I have it?'
There MUST always be an opportunity to say 'No'....
deleted
Reply #120 Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:53 PM
Reply #120 Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:53 PM
I agree with you Jafo. Don't laugh at me if this is an incredibly silly idea, but perhaps it would be possible to have one multi-site network or database for the major and not so major websites that wish to comply with the network.
For example (This is MY idea of an almost ideal system): Beginner-Skinner Bob wants to upload an update to a popular skin. He creates a rough version of the update, takes a screenshot, and e-mails the screenshot to the original author of the popular skin. The author gives Bob go-ahead #1, and Bob finishes up the skin. He then sends an updated screenshot to the original author, and this time the author gives Bob go-ahead #2. Bob then logs onto the site of his choice, uploads his update, and the update then gets transfered to all sites that wish to comply with the network.
Sorry if I just bored you to death, but I figured I might as well throw my opinion into all of this.
For example (This is MY idea of an almost ideal system): Beginner-Skinner Bob wants to upload an update to a popular skin. He creates a rough version of the update, takes a screenshot, and e-mails the screenshot to the original author of the popular skin. The author gives Bob go-ahead #1, and Bob finishes up the skin. He then sends an updated screenshot to the original author, and this time the author gives Bob go-ahead #2. Bob then logs onto the site of his choice, uploads his update, and the update then gets transfered to all sites that wish to comply with the network.
Sorry if I just bored you to death, but I figured I might as well throw my opinion into all of this.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 6 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #101 Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:08 PM
Anyway back to the topic: I just do not see the difference in someone doing a port of someone else's skin and doing an extra bit for WB. It's still taking someone elses work and tweaking it before putting your name to it. I would also say it's more work to add XP+WB4 features to an older WB skin than to do a port to say DesktopX.
To reiterate: Yes I want something in WB that can use skin patches. No I don't want the process to be opt-out. I want it to be opt-in so the author of the skin in the first place approves it but the person porting does not have to upload the full skin again themselves. To come back to thredz here there are now 2 thredz skins on this site. One by dangeruss and an updated one by me. The second is exactly the same except it has extra features and was uploaded by a different person. If the second had been a skin patch rather than a full skin then the downloads would still be being applied on that skin as well as the patch.
As to saying we should let old skins die I really do not agree. They are only old to those who saw them when they were created. New people to skinning have never seen them. But if they did come across them many would say 'This sucks! It doesn't even skin the start menu.' or similar. Does that mean the skin is no longer worth using? Of course not. But who here looks at the oldest skins when they want to find a nice WB? I would lay odds hardly anyone. And why? Because they were created when WB was in it's infancy and won't support the latest features. Old skins are not like other old things. They don't depreciate with time. The art is still art even if it's not been created yesterday. The only problem is it won't support all the latest bells and whistles. With the appropriate permission it would be great to see the skins updated and back where they belong. In pride of place instead of sitting at the bottom of the pile, slowly being covered over with dust and forgotten.
pjpowell gets off his soapbox