Talk:Eye candy

message: I made this.  Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Should the Photo be of KDE or windows Vista. Vista would be better because it is a common operating system and it has TONS of eye candy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.176.209 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was Vista even added to the article? KDE is more featureful, looks better, and hasn't anywhere near the legal issues surrounding Vista screenshots like that. --Mike 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, the issue is that KDE, let alone Linux/Unix, is largely known to the public at large and the inclusion of a widely known OS is needed, as I have gone with the Gallery code and images of KDE, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X v10.4. Also, saying something "looks better" is your point of view, not necessarily a widely felt point of view. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no choice. All Vista images are fair use. Fair use images can only be used to "illustrate the object in question", or where it is in replaceable. It is not strictly nessecary to have a Vista image to illustrate "eye candy". Take a look at Beryl or Compiz if you wan't a new eye candy image on this page. --Ysangkok 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we CAN illustrate "Eye Candy" in the article. Maybe we should take at least of 2 different images for illustrating "Eye Candy". That mustn't be a shoot of an OS like Vista or Mac OS, just to prevent conflicts like above this contrib ;) --87.123.87.47 08:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista or KDE? 

message: Hello, folks! Maybe you want to orientate to the German wiki-article of "Eye Candy", which is not a stub, but there is also a mention of the Vista GUI. --87.123.87.47 08:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Releasing this article from the stub block 

message: The "visual appeal" link no longer has its own article, but instead redirects to an article about human physical attractiveness.  This means that there is no longer any item here discussing things such as (gratuitous) flashy graphics in user interfaces.  Yet many pages about computers and electronics link here for precisely that discussion.  John Darrow (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up, unless good objections are raised, I will likely move this page to eye candy (disambiguation) and create a new "eye candy" page explicitly discussing the term's use, arguments for and against including eye candy in user interfaces, etc. (starting by dredging up some of the information from previous revisions of this page).  John Darrow (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles and links restored. You better write an article eye candy (user interface); you may reuse something from "attractiveness". page. Please don't forget to footnote enough references, otherwise someone redirects it somewhere else again. - 7 bubyon >t 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Visual appeal" link no longer general 

message: This seems to be missing a sub-topic on Eye Candy Software (Acid Warp, etc), typically predecessors to the music visualizations seen today. Though it seems like the former pages for all that software have also been purged (I'm guessing due to some deluded "notability" concern around a niche topic). Kolano (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Subtopic Missing