- Each illustration should be translated in as many languages as possible.
This part can be done by volunteers, but the image has to be advertised to them.
Very important but it shouldn't be part of the grading criteria. We shouldn't encourage artists to create versions outside of the languages they speak. They would resort to translation software/dictionaries which leaves room for error.
- Free software should be used if possible. By free software, they mean of
course Inkscape. There are several reasons: first, it is free :-) so in the same spirit as Wikimedia projects; this software can be used by anyone without the need to buy a license; it produces better SVG code than OOo or Illustrator if you don't have the good plugin. Fr.graphists said that this may be a problem with professional graphists, who tend to use more professional tools.
I don't think the tools they use matter much as long as they submit clean code. If they do use something like Illustrator, the code easily be cleaned up, even automatically. Inkscape is arguably better than those "professional tools" when it comes to SVG. And hopefully this project attracts those professional graphists.
- Maybe it goes without saying, but all illustrations should be in SVG
format. PNG is much harder to translate / adapt. ANother good reason to use Inkscape.
Not specific to Inkscape, but yes, SVG should basically be the only format we suggest (except GIF for animation).
- Some fr.graphists were anxious about a possible "en.wikipedia-centrism",
meaning that some illustrations would be useful to the en.wikipedia project but maybe not to others. This can work the other way around too (Wikipedia vs. Wikibooks, etc.). This also means that they should be easy to translate (maybe problematic when jargon or technical language is used). Maybe illustrations for "core topics" should have higher priority as well...
I don't see that being an issue here. At least with the en part. There shouldn't be anything requested that's only useful in one language. Being Wikipedia-biased may be so. But it should be, as it's the most popular and has the greatest need for images. It's needs are probably also the furthest reaching, meaning a given image is likely to have a use somewhere else, too.
Finally, they also said that it would have much more impact to teach graphists to use their tools (Inkscape / GIMP / etc.), to create tutorials, etc. than to pay for a few hundred pictures. This would be much more in the spirit of Wikimedia projects. People could be paid to teach new graphists, to write well-illustrated tutorials, etc., which should also potentially generate less frustration between paid and volunteer graphists. Another way of avoiding this "frustration" is to make sure the diagrams produced in the Greenspun project have a really high quality.
Sounds nice, but that's not what this project's for. Hopefully it will encourage others to make some tutorials. OTOH, maybe a single tutorial request (SVG format) would be a good idea.
- create commonly accepted standards or recommandations for maps and
diagrams. The French Graphic Lab already uses cartographic standards extensively (see [1])
Yes, we should use multi-wiki standards wherever we can.
Some other good ideas in there.
-brad (rocket000)