Windows Aero tag implication

Posted under Tags

flatrute

BUR #51627 has been rejected.

remove implication windows_vista -> microsoft_windows
remove implication windows_7 -> microsoft_windows
create implication windows_aero -> microsoft_windows
create implication windows_vista -> windows_aero
create implication windows_7 -> windows_aero

I was quite hesitant on making this, but here I go...

Like the forum #317595 and forum #336051, this BUR covers posts depicting common GUI features (mainly software windows) of both OSes without resorting to guesswork on the exact version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero

For examples, the windows in post #9115875 and post #9552841 are just as if not more likely to be from 7. Alongside with Frutiger Aero being a general tag, artists can always depicts those elements by hands like post #8283541 and post #9051218.

Reply
wingdings CommentaryRequest People of the Book asgembed . js bipface nekyoshi Pokemon by gender ratio hdk5 Confetto user 990540 Kawakijin BKaz20
flatrute

wingdings said:

i guess it doesn't hurt, but i'm not 100% convinced about making the implication hierarchy for Microsoft Windows any more complex than it already is.

As stated in the BUR, people cannot tell the differences between the two versions just from an imported layer of window screenshot. It is also not that more complex than the Classic category tag before and also gives room for potential "generic Frutiger Aero windows" depictions in future drawings.

Reply
wingdings

the angle i'm taking is that if we're going to entertain categorizing windows versions, then we should probably just go all in. the issue with that being that no matter what you do, Windows XP will be left awkwardly floating on its own, unless it's brought under Windows Classic, but that would violate the UI aesthetic consistency of that tag, so that's a non-starter.

Reply
flatrute

bipface said:

I'm just not convinced that something like post #1431850 should be tagged with windows aero by implication. There's nothing resembling aero in the picture, but it still needs to be tagged windows_7.

Unless you rethink of the tag as a term encompassing everything around the two OSes and not just some specific GUI elements like the Classic tag does. As a stretch, I could also argue that the design of Madobe Nanami is very Aero-coded anyway.

Reply
flatrute

wingdings said:

the angle i'm taking is that if we're going to entertain categorizing windows versions, then we should probably just go all in. the issue with that being that no matter what you do, Windows XP will be left awkwardly floating on its own, unless it's brought under Windows Classic, but that would violate the UI aesthetic consistency of that tag, so that's a non-starter.

I can somewhat see what you are arguing about to be fair. My main reason for the Classic and Aero tags is for people not to guesswork the exact versions of Windows windows that artists inserted and/or drew into their arts while you mostly see them as generation categories like 1980s_(style), 1990s_(style), et cetera if I am not wrong?

Reply
bipface

flatrute said:

Unless you rethink of the tag as a term encompassing everything around the two OSes and not just some specific GUI elements

I mean the definition is in the wikipedia article you provided:

Windows Aero is the design language introduced in Microsoft Windows Vista

For danbooru to redefine 'aero' as being a subseries of MS windows versions, would be a bit weird IMO

Reply
flatrute

bipface said:

For danbooru to redefine 'aero' as being a subseries of MS windows versions, would be a bit weird IMO

We already redefined Classic as being a sub-series of four specific versions of Windows from the late 90s to early 2000s already, so what is wrong with that?

Reply
flatrute

On another note, I planned to also make BURs on aliasing 8 to 8.x and having 11 implying 10 but I feel like there are not enough posts to justify them with the latter being very specific in computer technicalities as well.

Reply
bipface

flatrute said:

We already redefined Classic as being a sub-series of four specific versions of Windows from the late 90s to early 2000s already, so what is wrong with that?

I don't think that's a fair comparison because, as far as I can tell, 'Windows Classic' is not an established term outside danbooru -- but rather a label based on well-known terms like the 'classic theme', 'classic startmenu', etc.

Reply
flatrute

bipface said:

I don't think that's a fair comparison because, as far as I can tell, 'Windows Classic' is not an established term outside danbooru -- but rather a label based on well-known terms like the 'classic theme', 'classic startmenu', etc.

So is "Aero theme/style" term, unless I am being conflated by the groups of retro computer enthusiasts...

Reply
flatrute

GabrielWB said:

Windows XP has its own design language known as Luna so keeping it completely separate from Classic and Aero makes sense.
If Microsoft ever decides to go back to the best visual style for Windows 12 or 13 we could make a tag like Windows Luna, but for now its fine to just leave XP alone.

Off topic, but Luna has been somewhat meh to me. Sure, it is iconic, but it was not quite fleshed out unlike Energy Blue a.k.a. Royale that came out a few years later exclusively on Media Center Edition 2005. That and the fact that Windows XP is the start of many of their bad decisions being ramped up for the sake of protecting their profits makes it tough for me to look at it in a positive angle.

Reply
Confetto

Yeah, I'm strongly against this. This is a grouping of exactly two OSes, it is not a useful metatag unlike something like Windows Classic where the UI design often overlaps to the point of having miniscule differences between them (and includes far more products).

Vista and 7 actually have quite a lot of visual differences compared to Classic.

flatrute said:

As stated in the BUR, people cannot tell the differences between the two versions just from an imported layer of window screenshot. It is also not that more complex than the Classic category tag before and also gives room for potential "generic Frutiger Aero windows" depictions in future drawings.

Is this not served by microsoft_windows frutiger_aero? Another aspect is that the Classic family had absolutely no other options to search specifically for generic representations, since there were no additional tags to describe the style. That's not the case here.

Updated by Confetto

Reply
flatrute

Confetto said:

Yeah, I'm strongly against this. This is a grouping of exactly two OSes, it is not a useful metatag unlike something like Windows Classic where the UI design often overlaps to the point of having miniscule differences between them (and includes far more products).

Vista and 7 actually have quite a lot of visual differences compared to Classic.

I agree with this for posts having actually different elements in like taskbar. However, windows and icons that are more commonly seen are virtually the same between the OSes.

Is this not served by microsoft_windows frutiger_aero? Another aspect is that the Classic family had absolutely no other options to search specifically for generic representations, since there were no additional tags to describe the style. That's not the case here.

You are right that for generic windows those two tags would be mostly enough. My problem however lies on the fact when a tagger see future posts that are in vein with those that I mentioned above they could either:

Unless searching ~windows_vista ~windows_7 window_(computing) is alright somehow, splitting out such posts out like that is not useful in my opinion.

Reply
1