|
|
|
|
|
|
by hosteur
976 days ago
|
|
|
> I think this is said in every Krita submission So maybe they should take it seriously. > but Krita's largest type of audience is cartoon-y fantasy artists. It makes sense for their demographic. Yeah, that seems like survivor bias: the cartoony fantasy artists may be only ones tolerating it. So with this mascot they will select for such demographic.
I mean, that is fine if they want to keep it that way. I am a happy user of Krita myself. I think it is a marvellous tool. However, I am not using it at work precisely because of the mascot and splash screen. I feel Krita could be used my so many more people if they had a more neutral mascot. |
|
|
Yes, an artist community take bikeshedding advice from a community with a skew from the tech industry. That always ends well.
>the cartoony fantasy artists may be only ones tolerating it. So with this mascot they will select for such demographic.
Sounds like a chicken and egg situation.
Regardless, it's a classic business question. When you become an established piece of software due to community efforts, do you try to become more mainstream at the cost of metaphorically betraying the very community that got you such visibility? History says thst it is the most profitable venture but a surefire way to become the very thing these open source initiatives strove to oppose. So it's not exactly a road I will personally champion (nor oppose per se. In some ways the founders do deserve such riches. And I'd probably take them myself on their shoes).
The only benefit here is that such a change has a chance to fork the project if there are enough unsatisfied customers. But forking can still get messy.