* 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)