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 As the software for these skins gains in function, these skins come to look outdated and are no longer used.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 7 of 9 | |
|
|---|
adni18
Reply #122 Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:25 PM
Reply #122 Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:25 PM
I have give permission to a lot of people, to port my skins for other applications.
Do you want to know the results?
The most of them they were very poor with bad graphic details.
They were some exceptions though, but just 2 or 3 only.
Do you believe that with the skin patches we are going to have better results?
I am not negative; I just try to offer you my 2 cents.
After all it is a debate, isn't it?
Do you want to know the results?
The most of them they were very poor with bad graphic details.
They were some exceptions though, but just 2 or 3 only.
Do you believe that with the skin patches we are going to have better results?
I am not negative; I just try to offer you my 2 cents.
After all it is a debate, isn't it?
Jafo
Reply #123 Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:40 PM
Reply #123 Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:40 PM
Nikos...that's why it should be an opt in process.
If you or anyone has reservations about possible quality degradation then they can simply do nothing and no-one will be allowed to touch their work[s] without begging directly...
If you or anyone has reservations about possible quality degradation then they can simply do nothing and no-one will be allowed to touch their work[s] without begging directly...
paxx
Reply #124 Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:08 PM
Reply #124 Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:08 PM
So, what is being suggested is that there would be a checkbox for each skin letting the author choose if he wants or not to let people make a patch for it without asking permission?
I can't imagine anybody checking that box. I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't let just ANYBODY make that patch. And even if a good skinner made an excellent job, I certainly would appreciate to know about it.
I can't imagine anybody checking that box. I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't let just ANYBODY make that patch. And even if a good skinner made an excellent job, I certainly would appreciate to know about it.
adni18
Reply #125 Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:40 PM
Reply #125 Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:40 PM
It is still looks complicated to me Paul and I love clear and simple situations in a public community and as a computer user too.
If it was philosophy, then count me in, no matter how complicate a case could be, it is always very interesting for me
If it was philosophy, then count me in, no matter how complicate a case could be, it is always very interesting for me
IPlural
Reply #126 Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:58 PM
andi I doubt anyone would take offense, I know I don't.
The reason I think I need to sit back and watch is exactly as I presented it. To learn, my brother instilled my work ethic and part of that is, if your mouth is open your ears are shut. So with typing I guess it applies that if your fingers are doing the talking you eyes are shut
if I had even begun to make skins I might know an iota enough to comment with some kind of validity. Because I have not I am only able to speak of it from one source on a personal level, and thinking this back over it is deeply personal for you who do skin and have been skinning for a period of time. So, watch, absorb and learn is the rule for me now
It would kind of be like me showing up at the track for the first time and attempting to complete everything Jafo was telling me as if it was all there by osmosis and his close proximity
mindless on my part to do so and dangerous to boot
anywho
Reply #126 Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:58 PM
andi I doubt anyone would take offense, I know I don't.The reason I think I need to sit back and watch is exactly as I presented it. To learn, my brother instilled my work ethic and part of that is, if your mouth is open your ears are shut. So with typing I guess it applies that if your fingers are doing the talking you eyes are shut
if I had even begun to make skins I might know an iota enough to comment with some kind of validity. Because I have not I am only able to speak of it from one source on a personal level, and thinking this back over it is deeply personal for you who do skin and have been skinning for a period of time. So, watch, absorb and learn is the rule for me now
It would kind of be like me showing up at the track for the first time and attempting to complete everything Jafo was telling me as if it was all there by osmosis and his close proximity
mindless on my part to do so and dangerous to boot
anywho
Jafo
Reply #127 Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:13 PM
Reply #127 Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:13 PM
lPlural...you'd be surprised.....many a time I have been 'told' by flaggies, etc that have had one or two years experience with motor racing and assume they 'know it all', till I say...'yes, I did that back in '75....what were YOU doing then?' Ysual reply...'er, wasn't born yet.'....
It doesn't matter that a person is neither a skinner, nor the coder of WB, etc....what matters is opinion and its input...
It doesn't matter that a person is neither a skinner, nor the coder of WB, etc....what matters is opinion and its input...
IPlural
Reply #128 Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:39 PM, I bet you do and I also bet they do
I know, but I've about hit the ability limit of constructive feed back from where I sit without being deeper involved in the system really
Reply #128 Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:39 PM
, I bet you do and I also bet they do I know, but I've about hit the ability limit of constructive feed back from where I sit without being deeper involved in the system really
Iben
Reply #129 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:39 AM
Reply #129 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:39 AM
I didn't have time to catchup on this whole thread so please forgive me if someone already suggested this.
Maybe skinners could make these spare parts (Patches) and upload into a new library section.
They could include a list of skins their parts were made to go with.
Then the user could download the parts if they liked them.
The advanced configuration window for windowblinds could be refitted with a way to load skins and then apply a part swap for that skin that the user wants to swap.
This way the original skin would remain unchanged and it would be a confidential user preference involved only on the users computer. You can tell WB now to only use a specific XP start panel ,this new tool could just expand on an already available feature.
Just my 2 cents for today.
Maybe skinners could make these spare parts (Patches) and upload into a new library section.
They could include a list of skins their parts were made to go with.
Then the user could download the parts if they liked them.
The advanced configuration window for windowblinds could be refitted with a way to load skins and then apply a part swap for that skin that the user wants to swap.
This way the original skin would remain unchanged and it would be a confidential user preference involved only on the users computer. You can tell WB now to only use a specific XP start panel ,this new tool could just expand on an already available feature.
Just my 2 cents for today.
Weaksid
Reply #130 Friday, February 28, 2003 3:32 AM
Reply #130 Friday, February 28, 2003 3:32 AM
129 entries and didn't read a single one. Wait, I read the first. My thing is, the skinner has the rights if it gets updated. But how I would end up. Once I'm done, I don't care about updating. I would be like, if you feel spunky enough to update it. Go ahead, just make sure I get the main credit for the design. Ok, I said my cent at least. 
My thing is, the skinner has the rights if it gets updated. But how I would end up. Once I'm done, I don't care about updating. I would be like, if you feel spunky enough to update it. Go ahead, just make sure I get the main credit for the design. Ok, I said my cent at least. 
Al Berry
Reply #131 Friday, February 28, 2003 8:24 AM
Reply #131 Friday, February 28, 2003 8:24 AM
Okay, I'm about to rush off to a lecture and so don't have time to read all 6 pages of notes - but suffice to say I think that patching is a great idea to bring new life to old skins!
However, to make sure that people know that the author has given permission for the skin to be patched, there could be a new section (or sub-section) for patchable skins & themes. If it's in there then people can make updates for that skin - if not then it's a big no no!
Of course - the added bonus is that if it's in a complete section of its own - then it doesn't fool people into thinking that it's a *new* skin - but rather it's obvious that it's based on work of a different author (thus still giving them the credit they deserve for all the hard work they put into creating it).
Just an idea...
However, to make sure that people know that the author has given permission for the skin to be patched, there could be a new section (or sub-section) for patchable skins & themes. If it's in there then people can make updates for that skin - if not then it's a big no no!
Of course - the added bonus is that if it's in a complete section of its own - then it doesn't fool people into thinking that it's a *new* skin - but rather it's obvious that it's based on work of a different author (thus still giving them the credit they deserve for all the hard work they put into creating it).
Just an idea...
GreenReaper
Reply #132 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:03 PM
Reply #132 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:03 PM
Wow. Lots of debate. I didn't think it would be so controversial when I suggested it to Frogboy - but then I didn't think people modifying other people's skins would end up being the main use of it. The way I figured, this would be a great way for authors to offer a lot more options for their own skins.
For example, I'm sure any good skinner has had a lot of emails saying "oh, I think X is great, but I really would like it if it had Y in it/didn't have Z looking quite this way - could you make me a version like that?" . . . sound familiar? But of course that means making a copy of the skin. Or what if you wanted to make lots of different versions of a skin right off, or even just UIS2 and UIS1 versions? You'd have to make a multitude of subskins, and keep each one updated every time you made a change.
But with skin patches, that all changes. Now you just need to have *one* base skin, and the patches (perhaps stored as folders under the original skin folder) handle all the variations. And it becomes incredibly easier to make such a variation. If someone comes and asks you for one, you whip one up in SkinStudio or Notepad, zip it into a wbp and upload, and it's done.
Skin patches are much more than just a way to rejuvinate old skins. They're a way to offer users far more choice than was previously possible. And doesn't that sound like a good thing?
For example, I'm sure any good skinner has had a lot of emails saying "oh, I think X is great, but I really would like it if it had Y in it/didn't have Z looking quite this way - could you make me a version like that?" . . . sound familiar? But of course that means making a copy of the skin. Or what if you wanted to make lots of different versions of a skin right off, or even just UIS2 and UIS1 versions? You'd have to make a multitude of subskins, and keep each one updated every time you made a change.
But with skin patches, that all changes. Now you just need to have *one* base skin, and the patches (perhaps stored as folders under the original skin folder) handle all the variations. And it becomes incredibly easier to make such a variation. If someone comes and asks you for one, you whip one up in SkinStudio or Notepad, zip it into a wbp and upload, and it's done.
Skin patches are much more than just a way to rejuvinate old skins. They're a way to offer users far more choice than was previously possible. And doesn't that sound like a good thing?
werewolf
Reply #133 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:08 PM
Reply #133 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:08 PM
Hmm GreenReaper...never thought of it that way. It does sound like a good thing.
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #134 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:30 PM
Reply #134 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:30 PM
I think it's wrong unless the original author gives their consent.
First of all it could dilute the quality of the original skin. If you get some untalented loser who has no skills and uploads a patch to a skin that a skin author spent weeks on what happens? Well you will have this great skin with subpar looking shell support. How does that reflect on the original artist? What if someone uploads a screenshot and here you have this great skin and crappy added things. Will people know its a patch? No. They won't. So the observer will think the skin artist got lazy.
I for one had better never seen any of our skins "patched" without mine or my client's consent and authorization.
They tried doing this in the film industry. Movie studios releasing their own versions of a "Director's Cut" when the Director has no approval or say so. You'll find the Director puts the name "Allen Smithee" instead of their own name as a protest. Its been done quite frequently.
Any site that would authorize this practice of not consulting the original artist before allowing their work to be visually modified would be black listed in my book.
Here's an example and the closing to my point. A really nice artist wanted to release an updated version of our Xbox skin. He showed me the task side of the windows that he skinned. It didn't match what we did. I would literally freak out if our skin was shown in that way.
We work our asses off on these things. While i don't physically do the graphic work i am a 100% involved in the total development of a skin. Rarely do i not have input. Once in awhile i have less if i'm too busy but that's few and far between. I spend countless hours of my day working directly with Skins Factory artists fine-tuning and making the best art we can. And hell if i will let some kid who using MS paint come in and release some substandard artwork to be used with our hard work.
That's all i have to say on the matter.
First of all it could dilute the quality of the original skin. If you get some untalented loser who has no skills and uploads a patch to a skin that a skin author spent weeks on what happens? Well you will have this great skin with subpar looking shell support. How does that reflect on the original artist? What if someone uploads a screenshot and here you have this great skin and crappy added things. Will people know its a patch? No. They won't. So the observer will think the skin artist got lazy.
I for one had better never seen any of our skins "patched" without mine or my client's consent and authorization.
They tried doing this in the film industry. Movie studios releasing their own versions of a "Director's Cut" when the Director has no approval or say so. You'll find the Director puts the name "Allen Smithee" instead of their own name as a protest. Its been done quite frequently.
Any site that would authorize this practice of not consulting the original artist before allowing their work to be visually modified would be black listed in my book.
Here's an example and the closing to my point. A really nice artist wanted to release an updated version of our Xbox skin. He showed me the task side of the windows that he skinned. It didn't match what we did. I would literally freak out if our skin was shown in that way.
We work our asses off on these things. While i don't physically do the graphic work i am a 100% involved in the total development of a skin. Rarely do i not have input. Once in awhile i have less if i'm too busy but that's few and far between. I spend countless hours of my day working directly with Skins Factory artists fine-tuning and making the best art we can. And hell if i will let some kid who using MS paint come in and release some substandard artwork to be used with our hard work.
That's all i have to say on the matter.
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #135 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:31 PM
Reply #135 Friday, February 28, 2003 12:31 PM
I do think the idea has merit though if the proper authorizations are asked for and given. In that case it is a wonderful idea. But permission MUST be obtained.
Sorry forgot to add that last part.
Sorry forgot to add that last part.
imtoomuch
Reply #136 Friday, February 28, 2003 11:42 PM
Reply #136 Friday, February 28, 2003 11:42 PM
Any "patch," whether it uses the original skin's graphics or not, should not be linked to that skin without the original author's consent, period! I agree with what has already been said - if the author is long gone and you can't contact him, too bad. It's not right to be able to offer "patches" to his/her skin.
CheeseCow
Reply #137 Saturday, March 1, 2003 4:43 AM
Reply #137 Saturday, March 1, 2003 4:43 AM
There should be an option when uploading to choose licence. LGPL/GPL would let anyone do the updates and re-publish it. Also a patch would be no problem. Or he can choose to just allow patches. Whatever rocks his boat. But there shouldn't be a "patching" system without the author giving the OK.
paxx
Reply #138 Saturday, March 1, 2003 8:20 AM
Reply #138 Saturday, March 1, 2003 8:20 AM
Cheese: from what I understand, that is what's being discussed: an option upon uloading a skin where one would accept any patch for his skin without having to be asked for permission.
NOw, from what I understand, the debate is wheather this check box should be checked or not by default. Should all skins be open for all to "patch" by default, or should it not.
Most people are saying, no, it shouldn't be by default.
As a matter of fact, other than maybe a very small handfull, I can't imagine any author checking that box ever. Most people would have no objection giving somebody permission, AS LONG AS THEY ASK.
NOw, from what I understand, the debate is wheather this check box should be checked or not by default. Should all skins be open for all to "patch" by default, or should it not.
Most people are saying, no, it shouldn't be by default.
As a matter of fact, other than maybe a very small handfull, I can't imagine any author checking that box ever. Most people would have no objection giving somebody permission, AS LONG AS THEY ASK.
chadlachlanross
Reply #139 Saturday, March 1, 2003 8:29 AM
Reply #139 Saturday, March 1, 2003 8:29 AM
I tried to read most of this thread, but there is a lot of commenting going on here. As the outcome effects me personally, I had to add my comment to the long list.
I'm against this. If a skin needs updating, a request should be made to the original artist. If the original artist does not feel like updating it, a person can request permission to update it. If no permission is given, then the skin stays as it is.
Again, I am against this. Even the basic concept is flawed. If it goes into effect, my skins will disappear.
I'm against this. If a skin needs updating, a request should be made to the original artist. If the original artist does not feel like updating it, a person can request permission to update it. If no permission is given, then the skin stays as it is.
Again, I am against this. Even the basic concept is flawed. If it goes into effect, my skins will disappear.
Kirby2121
Reply #140 Saturday, March 1, 2003 1:36 PM
Reply #140 Saturday, March 1, 2003 1:36 PM
I would like very much to see updates to older skins as the technology developes past what was possible at the time the skin originated. Many of my most favorite skins are older and I really love their look and feel. I still enjoy using them with Windows XP. My main concern on using graphics is that the orignial graphics should be used where possible, otherwise the skin will morph over time into something that little resembles the original skin. I realize that due to copyright restrictions, the skin author's permission will be needed. I expect that in many cases, this will not be difficult to obtain provided the author can be reached. That may be a problem for some skins as there may be a lot of authors missing in action. Updating a skin with new and original graphics would basically change the skin into a different different entity and I think defeat the purpose of updating. Why not just creat a new skin? I know it's less work than starting from scratch, but if the old skin is changed to much, it will become a diffent animal altogether. I think as much of the origial work should be preserved as possible and the original author given credit for it and the updater credited for the improvements.
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 7 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #121 Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:05 PM
IE: A user loads an old skin, Windowblinds makes a quick check on the Wincust database, and then tells the user "Hey, there is a patch for that skin, Wanna get it?".