Joomla Templates Club 406,261 posts

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#393710

<em>@phill luckhurst 243468 wrote:</em><blockquote>
Selfish? That is a bit harsh. Licencing costs have spiralled for stock images that add little to the package you get. They are stock images and not something anyone would use in a live site surely?</blockquote>
I guess my “with all due respect” response to that would be – what about all of the images JoomlART has (and continues to use) for previous templates where the images are in tact within the quickstart packages? Why could not previous images that JoomlArt already uses be utilized?

You’re correct, I would/will not utilize the sample images in my eventual live site. As I said, for myself (and others, I am quite sure) the sample images are helpful for visualization purposes as we put things together and see how it will eventually look.

To be honest, it’s not an issue worth arguing over, for sure. It just seemed a bit disappointing when I installed the quickstart package expecting to see what I saw int he demo – and it wasn’t there. In the end, it’s not THAT huge of a deal … it just would have been helpful to me as a “visual guide” as I customize things.

[sergeng Friend sergengJoin date: June 2008Posts: 1Downloads:0Uploads:0]

#414887

<em>@TomC 243664 wrote:</em><blockquote>I guess my “with all due respect” response to that would be – what about all of the images JoomlART has (and continues to use) for previous templates where the images are in tact within the quickstart packages? Why could not previous images that JoomlArt already uses be utilized?

You’re correct, I would/will not utilize the sample images in my eventual live site. As I said, for myself (and others, I am quite sure) the sample images are helpful for visualization purposes as we put things together and see how it will eventually look.

To be honest, it’s not an issue worth arguing over, for sure. It just seemed a bit disappointing when I installed the quickstart package expecting to see what I saw int he demo – and it wasn’t there. In the end, it’s not THAT huge of a deal … it just would have been helpful to me as a “visual guide” as I customize things.</blockquote>

Exactly design is a visual process!
altering this workflow without asking/polling your userbase is harsh and deceiving…

a blank kickstart package slowdown the design process because require more time to visualize if one is even inspired at all!
a real (images) kickstart greatly speed-up the design process as a visual aid (as the finish product might be) they are part of the framework!

very few of us are full-time developers!

slowing down our process because you might not see a usefulness out of it will be detrimental >:( i assure you!

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#414889

<em>@sergeng 270420 wrote:</em><blockquote>slowing down our process because you might not see a usefulness out of it will be detrimental … i assure you!</blockquote>

Actually, I will have to respectfully disagree . . .

Since my original post and comments several months back, I have done some additional investigation and have, humbly, re-evaluated/changed my previous “shot-from-the-hip” reactionary position/viewpoint with regard to this issue.

The reality of the situation is that licensing policies/procedures change all the time – and it is up to the organization holding the image licenses . . . not (unfortunately) JoomlArt. As a business, overhead expenses are a consideration … and it appears that the cost for continuing to cover the cost of the kind of image licensing to continue to provide the images for the kind of widespread consumption (via the template sample-data downloads) became a cost-benefit-analysis reduction decision.

Having been within the risk management profession for 19-yrs – including extensive work in risk financing against a company’s overall operating expense and continuing profitability (which, let’s face it, is the bottom-line premise for starting/running a business in the first place – right?), I can both understand and appreciate an overall cost-benefit-analysis decision.

In this particular case – again, after further introspection – I don’t think that the use of the image placeholders is such a bad thing. In the vast majority of cases, we all replace the original “general” images with our own relevant images anyway. Further, I appreciate the effort to, at least, create image placeholders that indicate the original placeholding dimensions so that, if we choose to keep the original image sizes, we know the width/height parameters within which to prepare our custom images.

Who knows . . . perhaps one day conditions will change to where JA feels thet can, once again, provide licensed images with the quickstart+sample data packages. However, until such time – as a result of further considering all aspects of JA’s decision to use image placeholders for the most recent (and future) template quickstart+sample data packages – I have, humbly, changed my original “complaint” and support JA’s decision going forward.

😎

[Author]

Posts