> GTK Stylesheets can make applications look broken, and even unusable.
Bugs are bad, yes.
> Icon Themes can change icon metaphors, leading to interfaces with icons that don’t express what the developer intended.
That is not a problem if you use icons for the purpose they are intended for.
> Changing an app’s icon denies the developer the possibility to control their brand.
Good. My computer is not your billboard. Consistency is more important than your "brand".
> Appstream Screenshots (the screenshots used in GNOME Software or Flathub) are not very useful if they look nothing like the real app does once you install it.
> User Help and Documentation are similarly useless if UI elements on your system are different from the ones described in the documentation.
Nonsense. Theming doesn't affect the layout of a program. If people were that bad at abstraction, then how do they recognize they can sit on a metal chair if they are familiar with wooden ones?
> They are built and tested for the upstream GNOME stylesheet, icons, and fonts, so that’s what they should look like on peoples’ systems.
No. They should look like the user chooses them to look. One way for the user to express their choice is to choose a distribution whose theme they like.
> Changing third-party apps without any QA is reckless, and would be unacceptable on any other platform.
Your entire comment feels awfully dismissive and egocentric.
The author presents valid and sensible issues with the state of theming on the GNOME platform. And the overarching topic is essentially User Experience.
Even the slightest change in color can introduce friction between UI elements.
Or to be more extreme, if a theme turns your entire app into a white blurry mess, you would get mad at the application, and not the theme. Although many of the same design principles are used in the making of either a chair or a graphical user interface, they are definitely not the same in any regard.
On the topic of icons: just like language, they evolve over time. On top of that, icons can have different meaning depending on your background. Icons can be combined to form a composite icon, and now imagine one of those icons is not displayed as you intended it to be. The entire meaning can change because the design intentions are lost.
On the topic of branding: it's not about your desktop being a billboard. It's about being able to recognize the brand across different operating systems, and it's also - more or less - the only thing about the product that is not designed for the purpose of user experience (but in a sense, they still are).
And let's be honest: most apps we use in our day to day life have very tame brands and adhere to certain standards. That is because the apps we use are usually good, and we throw the bad, obnoxious ones away really quickly.
All in all, the author presents valid concerns, especially if you don't project them on how you prefer your UI, but rather, how potential Linux / GNOME users could have additional difficulties because of theming issues.
The only egocentrism I see is all in the pompous article requesting that users do not make perfectly reasonable choices on their own computers. Then attempts to justify on some absurdly contrived grounds. Neither reasonable nor sensible.
Imagine if Apple asked users not to apply stickers to their laptop as it denies Apple the possibility to control their brand, or could make the laptop look broken, even unusable - shock I may even apply a sticker that shows a broken circuit board or simulates cracked aluminium. Apple's view is that applying a sticker to the case or keyboard render Appley documentation useless as they don't look like the pictures we screenshotted in moments.
> Even the slightest change in color can introduce friction between UI elements
Yeah, and? They might be the difference between unusable discomfort and usable, or allow ageing eyes to cope with arrogant and restricted developer choices, or missing sense of aesthetic. You might not like the colour car I buy or the decorating scheme I choose for my house. Mind your own damn business.
> On the topic of branding
Yeah, about that. It's branding that has led computer and phone makers to give highly limited theming capability. Firefox or my desktop is no longer my own to adjust and fiddle to unusability (sic) or perfection - as I see fit. Like the paint I use inside my house, mind your own damn business. I might LIKE my phone, Windows box and Linux box to all look highly distinct from each other for my own personal reasons. Mind your own damn business.
It is not another surface on which to stimulate my neurons to be further programmed by the brand. Baa.
Edit: Specifically on icons, I have been changing icons since the days of Workbench 1.3 in about 1986 or 87. I won't stop now. I've chosen wildly different icons for some apps at times - because they worked better for me. Icons as space for a logo is an entirely negative fashion to my mind as I prefer a hint, however vague, of what that a rarely used app does.
It EXPLICITLY says that it does not talk about users changing things on their machines, but wants it to be something the user sets instead of a distro applying by default.
I may choose a distro that specifically looks a certain way - like the one that tries to look just like MacOS. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. Just as it's perfectly reasonable to regret consistency on a platform that doesn't have distros - as you may want to vary.
"However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory."
Unsupported territory, for changing a desktop icon, or adding a higher or lower contrast stylesheet? Wow. That's pompous and absurd for me. Doesn't sound like it's explicitly made a reasonable exception though, just piles on a layer of entitlement for a damn brand.
If a distro is committed to modifying the style sheets to look like macOS, then it should be the distro’s responsibility to maintain the applications. Precisely because the distro market for Linux is so varied, it is hard for Gnome app developers to support all possible theme configurations.
Read the banner at the top of the page again. It doesn’t ask users to stop customizing, and it doesn’t say there shouldn’t be distros with custom theming. It just asks distros to stop shipping broken apps as a result of theming, and it asserts that if that’s the route you want to go, then you are on your own.
Choosing a Linux distro with a specific theme rather than one using Adwaita or sticking with the pre-installed Windows is the user changing things on their machine.
I'm not sure they're saying that end-users shouldn't make those decisions, simply warning that customised versions of their software won't be supported by upstream to the same degree, and thus distributers should leave the styling as-is. On the first point, to quote the article:
"If you like to tinker with your own system, that’s fine with us. However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory. Any issues you encounter should be reported to the theme developer, not the app developer."
I think that's the point they're trying to make - there is a certain amount of caveat emptor associated with theming. But they don't make it well when they say "don't them our apps".
"If you like to tinker with your own system, that’s fine with us ... However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory."
Unsupported territory for choosing a distro that looks unusual, or applies theming, or for changing my own damn desktop icon?
To my view of the world, the reasonable grain of truth in the article is "Don't break our apps when you theme them to match distro". A perfectly reasonable request, and stance that most could support without caveat.
Which is then thoroughly buried by a point of view that feels the app is the only arbiter, and tries to justify that on consistency of brand, icons not representing what the developer wishes etc, and that even individual user customisation is a big favour - an unsupported edge case.
What of the users?
It's reasonable to expect an app to both allow, and to work correctly with any theming built into the platform or distro. Bugs may be on either side. I concede it's mainly the major platforms that have done most to take away choices here, so you can no longer download new iconsets - to transform everything into ST:TNG or whatever. Where a distro seeks to theme everything it's the one app that won't, for brand experience, or developer wishes - that now sticks out like a sore thumb.
That is to be regretted, as much as platforms removing ability to build a custom night mode or extreme low contrast theme, or even add some slight 3d back to Windows. It's the end user who loses out to a worse experience or usability each and every time.
Good thing theming doesn't modify the software. It's reasonable to expect a developer to support software being used in an environment that does not 100% match what they use (to the extent it's reasonable to expect support in the first place).
The article isn't complaining about users changing things; it's complaining about the desktop unilaterally applying a style on all apps without testing.
I see your point. But beware that if you make app developers go mad, they can stop using gnome and use some fw that doesn't allow theming (there is only certain level you can piss off the people :).
> Your entire comment feels awfully dismissive and egocentric.
Actually, it's dismissive of the app developers' egocentrism. In so far as theming breaks usability, they do have a point. Distributions shouldn't make potentially incompatible changes to the default theme without QA. But it's not all the fault of distributions and not respecting branding is not a UX problem.
Yes, I may be too harsh towards people voluntarily writing free software. Developers putting their branding and their "vision" before usability and user control is just a major pet peeve of mine. And diplomacy is not my strong point.
> Even the slightest change in color can introduce friction between UI elements. Or to be more extreme, if a theme turns your entire app into a white blurry mess, you would get mad at the application, and not the theme.
Actually I would blame the theme, but yeah, the average user would. Wrongly assigned blame is a broader issue with free software and the distribution system though.
> On the topic of icons: just like language, they evolve over time.
The XDG Icon Naming Specification does not actually specify the names of concrete icons, but of meanings. For example, there is no "looking-glass" icon, but there is a "system-search" icon. If you use the "system-search" icon to display a looking glass because that's the metaphor the icon theme you're testing with uses, your application may display the wrong icon with a different icon theme.
If an application needs an icon that is not standardized, it can include it similarly to its own application icon.
> It's about being able to recognize the brand across different operating systems
No, it's about the user recognizing the application. Which they can. The Firefox icon the open letter used as an example is very much the Firefox icon, just in a different style.
> it's also [...] not designed for the purpose of user experience (but in a sense, they still are)
As someone who struggles with this too: The world doesn't care that you own it and admit it; they only care if you fix it, or at least work around it for them.
The Firefox/Thunderbird example is absolutely ridiculous - it's not up to these application developers to decide what icon or colour the user sees. It's up to them to provide defaults. As you say, it's clearly still Firefox - but even if it weren't, there are several good reasons I can think of that a distribution might want to change it.
What bugs me is the attitude that the solution is to reduce the usage of themes, as opposed to improve the theme engines and app dev toolkits. Why shouldn't the OS be able to impose a global stylesheet for colours, images used for semantic icons, sizes of common elements? If I, as a user, want to starting fiddling with my system theme, is it not likely that I might want all the apps on the system to play ball? Sounds pretty jarring to me to have one or two apps with their stubborn hardcoded "branding". (Oh wait, that's what we already have with Electron apps that don't respect the OS theme or conventions, and they suck!).
Oh, apps can't be restyled without manual work they say. "Until this perception changes..." they say. NO!
In an ideal world, applications could be built easily in such a way that allowed them to be themed without causing major UI bugs. The fact that this is such a large issue with GTK apps is surely further evidence that GTK has a bit of a problem - especially considering that other UI platforms are able to do a better job.
Perhaps - and I'm really pushing it here (/s) - solving the root causes of issues arising from custom themes relating to sizing and spacing might actually have other benefits as well. Like better support for UI scaling. Maybe the scope of themes needs to be reduced a little so it's easier for application developers to support?
The color change-inducing-friction complaint seems like an issue with lack of built-in theme sanity checking. There exist numerous partial solutions for this already, I'll link to the four best ones I know, albeit I wish someone would combine their approaches into one unified super-product:
1. http://www.hsluv.org/examples/ These palettes will absolutely NEVER clash. But they might have contrast issues. Which brings us to:
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19800718 Lyft primarily designed ColorBox.io to always reach WCAG 2.0 contrast ratios. Something I'd claim a ton of UX themes mess up. Unfortunately from what I can tell, it lacks the anti-clash guarantees of #1
3. Much less related, but still important, albeit only for very specific parts of any UX:
But, unfortunately, it too only serves as a partial solution (since, as far as I know—someone please correct me if I got that wrong—it doesn't address any of the matters discussed above), PLUS it seems highly likely that Adobe has software patents on it.
> And the overarching topic is essentially User Experience.
Which is User experience and not Developer experience. As a developer I can agree with them but as a user I couldn't care less about their brand. Sorry if I sound rude. It's not as if they are paying me to keep their brand consistent among desktops.
I theme a little my desktop because I like the general idea of the GNOME desktop but I don't like many of their graphical choices. Colors, scrollbars, margins are all wrong IMHO.
I'm sorry that those developers are suffering and I know that somebody is thinking about reducing the ability to theme GNOME, but I'll keep doing it as long as I can and if I screw something (my emacs scrollbars) it's on me.
It's not so egocentric if you factor in the fashion aspect. Not everybody wears the same matching clothes.
Then more crucial aspects of ability - such as eyesight being a major one.
Some people can't see some colours that well, some need larger fonts. Things like that in which theme's are the saviour and for many a developer - how they cater for disability usage.
Sure some theme's can break the UI, but to blame the user, which is the case here - now that's egocentric IMHO.
It says distributions should not theme because it doesn't work. If theming doesn't work when a distribution does it, it doesn't work either when an end user does it for accessibility.
"Doesn't work" is far too broad a statement. An end user might choose a theme that works fine for the handful of particular applications they care about; yet that same theme might disrupt many other applications on the same distribution.
End users can make that choice with regard to the extremely limited set of applications and use-cases that matter to them. A distribution has a far wider landscape to consider.
If you consider something that does not work reliably to work, you're right. I don't.
A distribution has to consider more applications and use cases, but it also has more resources. Doing things at the distribution level is much more efficient than each user doing their own thing, that's why they exist.
Expecting distro maintainers to test every GUI feature on every piece of software on Linux is a tad unrealistic don’t you think?
You’d expect (hope) core applications would be tested but what about stuff that’s not in the official repos? Or stuff that is but had a new feature unbeknown to the distro maintainers?
On HN last week there was a GUI bug in a core OSX utility being discussed that slipped through Apples testing. If they managed to overlook something in their own OS, then a smaller team of people, likely working for free in their spare time (remember a lot of the distros that ship non-standard themes as a default are spin offs) is unlikely to test every GUI form and dialog that can be rendered o. Linux.
Actually no that’s not what it said. Or at least not in the way that your terse paraphrased summary suggests.
What it actually does is list a number of reasons why distro themes are bad (in their opinion). Some of those reasons amarettos equally true for end users theming and some of those reasons are not. The letter also does say that end users are welcome to theme themselves but they should do so under the knowledge that there be (potential) dragons.
What it doesn’t say is that theming “doesn’t work”
Personally speaking, I’m on the fence about whether I agree that distro theming is bad. However I do think their points are perfectly valid and that a considerable number of HN commentators have taken the letter completely out of context.
Edit: and I’m also a little peeved that there is so much knee jerk down voting of comments on here. Particularly when those comments are quite literally correct. It’s a really pity you guys couldn’t be bothered to read the letter before abusing your right to moderate.
One of the reasons they cite for distro theming being bad is that it that it makes applications unusable. I think that can be validly summarized as "theming doesn't work".
Theming literally can break the UI in unexpected ways, however if often doesn’t. But if one manages the theme themselves then they are able to manage those edge cases themselves. If a distro does it then they can’t guarantee the end users are even aware that the unexpected UI is the fault of the distro.
That point was clearly laid out in the letter too. If people had bothered to read it.
What's dismissive is this word "dismissive". Sometimes, a comment really is just a random low-effort personal swipe that don't engage with the substance of the subject. The GP did not write one of those comments. Instead, wrote a valid and substantive critique of the article, and you don't get to score rhetorical points by smearing that work with vague labels like "dismissive".
The author presents valid concerns, but the user is still higher priority.
The consistent theme across apps is more important than the developer's brand. Suggestions for a theme is useful, essentially ordering others how to use their app and theme should be outright dismissed.
> Your entire comment feels awfully dismissive and egocentric.
I've had this comment on my mind for about an hour now, and it strikes me as both correct and yet the behaviour you identify is inoffensive to me in this context.
In particular, I don't disagree with users behaving in an egocentric manner regarding their desktop environment, the software they choose, and the way their hardware operates. That's an intimate and personal space where many spend most of their waking hours; they ought to feel empowered to control and operate it as they wish.
And if that's the case, it may be warranted to have a dismissive attitude towards those who would undermine that power.
- Users may choose a distribution that suits their desired aesthetic
Not everyone who wants a custom desktop aesthetic is technically adept enough to undertake the customization themselves, or perhaps they simply don't want to expend the effort. That's where distributions come in to assist.
I'm using System76's Pop_OS icon theme in Gnome Shell, and like the clean look of it. It changes the icons for a good number of popular applications too, which results in everything looking neat and coherent.
> Good. My computer is not your billboard.
Yes, seriously. If a user runs a free software desktop, chances are the ability to change things according to their wishes is part of why they use it.
> Changing third-party apps without any QA is reckless, and would be unacceptable on any other platform.
Which is why I use a platform that does grant me that freedom as a user.
To be clear, I’m responding to the affirmation that delivering app changes without any QA is acceptable.
I’m not against open software or user customization, but this approach does not result in quality software. Distros should be working with application developers and not against them. Here you have a large group of Linux app developers undersigning a plea to stop breaking their software and all they get is scorn and dismissal.
The parent correctly notes that theming is a valid feature of the platform, and asking essentially for ignoring the feature because of brand issues sounds ridiculous. It maybe 'unhelpful', but sometimes we just express our opinions here, not running consultancy services. It's called commentary section for a reason.
I don’t take issue with people expressing opinions, or even pointing out that theming is a platform feature.
But I do take issue with attacking developers who write applications for free, and contribute to the Linux ecosystem, for making a reasonable request to platform developers.
That paragraph continues. The letter is absolutely also aimed at end users:
> If you like to tinker with your own system, that’s fine with us. However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory. Any issues you encounter should be reported to the theme developer, not the app developer.
Just not with the same vehemence as its message directed at distros.
But I mean it's also technically correct. How could an application developer make any kind of guarantee in the face of arbitrary theming and tinkering by the end user?
Read that quote extract again—"If you like to tinker with your own system"—that is clearly saying to the distro developer to understand the distinction between your personal preferences and what you might distribute to others.
If the letter was aimed at end users, that qualifier would have been redundant. Therefore the letter is not aimed at end users.
It is not a reasonable request, though. End users want the ability to theme their system, and you cannot expect each end user to make their own themes. People rely on distributions for this to happen.
I understand that the devs do not want to be responsible for bugs stemming from broken themes, but this is the wrong solution. Ultimately the solution is a better theme API, not this which would essentially stop custom themes all together for most end users.
In other comments people argue that this isn't aimed at end users, but end users would of course also be impacted from this.
Theme API could be an improvement, but it isn't a perfect solution either - because the same complaints with the same arguments show up in relation to distros patching application code. It's a general problem of who changes the software. Some FLOSS developers seem to desire to have "producer/consumer" relationship with users of their software, seemingly forgetting that the entire point of FLOSS is to make this relationship model impossible to enforce.
I don't see a good technical solution here, but I see two social ones: a) developers of FLOSS must understand they're writing software that can and will be modified and re-released by others, sometimes individuals and sometimes organized groups (like people making Linux distributions); and b) users need to understand that if they have a problem with their software, they should reach out to people from whom they got that software for support. If you got a program from developer's home page, you should contact them directly. If you got it from your distro, then distro maintainers should be your first line of support.
(Also c), some users won't understand b), and forwarding support requests to appropriate people is just part of publishing FLOSS.)
It doesn't matter if the end users want the ability to theme their system—if the software they run is not designed to be themed, then it's not designed to be themed.
It doesn't matter if the software is designed to be themed. If I want it to be themed, I'll theme it anyway, and if I can't, it means the software and the platform it's running on is garbage, and I'll go find a different one.
Nobody is saying that you must not apply your favourite theme to whatever apps you like on your own computer. Not me, not the linked article.
If themes are so important to you, pick your app based on that criteria. If you think an app is garbage because it doesn’t theme well, fork it and write a better version yourself.
The main point of confusion in this whole thread is whether or not the article states you shouldn't apply themes on your own computer. To some, myself included, it kind of does. Linux distributions are not individual operating systems - they're essentially skins on top of Linux kernel, created bottom-up to offer opinionated choices to users. Picking a distribution is like modifying software on one's own computer, except without duplicating the same work other people would do. In this sense, the article does ask users to not customize software on their own machines.
That is an unfair inference because the author of the post explicitly says otherwise. To the extent he is speaking to you, he is only saying "thar be dragons" and that he will not explicitly support your use of a theme—therefore you should file any theme-induced bugs with the theme author and not with him.
> But I do take issue with attacking developers who write applications for free, and contribute to the Linux ecosystem, for making a reasonable request to platform developers.
How is releasing software under a license and asking people not do things allowed by that license reasonable?
That was the case in the early days of GTK3, but I don't think it is anymore.
If GTK3 still does not support theming, that explains why theming causes issues. In which case it would be better to implement proper theming support because stopping distributions from theming clearly doesn't work.
Oh yes, people have always done it, via one hack or another, and as long as it was more of a "for people who really want to fiddle" it wasn't that much of an issue.
But now expectations have risen, people expect more solid behaviour and look/feel from their apps, and distros routinely have quite different GTK themes.
Totally agree. Users have the power to do what they want at the end of the day. What's annoying is when you install an app and by default you don't recognise it's icon because of theming. Or the menu text is suddenly the same colour as the background, thereby making it unreadable and unusable.
And let's not forget that you need theming support so your OS can accommodate people with different vision requirements. So you can have a low-contrast theme, and a high-contrast theme, and a red-green colour-blind theme and so on. And let's not forget people who need a large text theme. Remember 15 years ago when we were so proud of GTK for being able to dynamically adjust for all these things (as opposed to Windows's half-assed support)? Remember when user experience was more important than designer vision? Remember when we all solved the problem of separating the data from the presentation? Remember when GUIs were written with a particular look in mind, but could adjust for various themes?
There does seem to be a weird user-hostile school of GUI design and I would really like to know where it comes from, so that we may try to mount a re-education effort.
Edit: And if you really need your app to not be themed, just force Adwaita on startup. This doesn't seem like it should need a complete upheaval in how we use GUIs.
> There does seem to be a weird user-hostile school of GUI design and I would really like to know where it comes from, so that we may try to mount a re-education effort.
The Web. It comes from the Web.
Web development has this bullshit school of UI/UX design that prioritizes branding, dark patterns, and treating users like toddlers, at the expense of making the software functional and usable. Since we all get industry news from the Web, the Web patterns are the most well-known, and they pollute desktop software development too (doubly so when desktop software is nowadays built as webpages bundled to a browser runtime).
It's not that the Web school of UX is completely wrong; the problem is that it mixes ergonomics with a whole range of tricks designed to make the software more popular and more sellable in spite of the utility reduction they cause, and then sells the whole bundle as "scientifically validated" and "data driven".
Yeah. People say one of the problems with free software is that its UX is designed by programmers rather than UX designers. Which makes sense, because UX designers should be able to design a good UX.
The article had pretty clear examples of where theming went wrong.
Themes are imposing a real cost on developers who let's be honest are doing the Linux platform a massive favour by even bothering to write apps for it. I hope the audience of that article are a little more sympathetic than yourself.
The article has one valid example of a bug. If it's a bug in the application, writing an open letter about it is not helpful. If it's a bug in the theme, the application developer is just not responsible for it.
> And how many times would they have to tell the end user who opened an issue on their app's tracker that?
There's a super clever life hack my wife used when working in e-commerce. She kept a text file with prepared replies to most common issues and questions, and used the OS's built-in copy-paste functionality to quickly responding to messages asking about the same thing. I hear this kind of functionality is even supported directly in desktop e-mail clients these days.
Unfortunately, this is ultimately the problem with free software. Either you publish with zero support, and users end up using your software badly (via poor blog posts telling them what to do) or they don't use it at all; or you end up paying for your contribution to the world with even more of your time, supporting people who either don't realise that they've introduced the faults themselves (either directly through their own errors, or indirectly through their choice of distribution or guide they've followed).
How do you solve the social problem of a large majority who feel entitled to everything for free?
My solution was to give up, publish free stuff anonymously with zero support, and charge for anything I actually care about. My charged-for software has multiple orders of magnitude more users than the free software, and effectively funds the free software that nobody actually uses.
I regularly think about not publishing the free stuff anymore, but I figure that even if a single person benefits from it, it's a net-positive, and so I keep going. It doesn't stop it being incredibly demoralising.
> Unfortunately, this is ultimately the problem with free software. Either you publish with zero support, and users end up using your software badly (via poor blog posts telling them what to do) or they don't use it at all;
You can have it on a website where users can talk to other users. And if you like, you can chime in. Say some code sharing platform. My experience is that people will help each other out usefully. You can even nudge them in this direction.
> How do you solve the social problem of a large majority who feel entitled to everything for free?
You don't. Why would you? You don't need to react to what you judge being an entitlement. You can misjudge though.
I've had reactions when contributing bug reports that I felt other person thought of me as being entitled, after I've spent considerable time identifying the root issue and suggesting a code change.
I've also thought of someone being entitled initially, when in the end the person ended up contributing useful service to other users of my program.
Oof. When I read the headline I though it was a call for app developers to stop making a bunch of custom-themed BS when the built-in widgets and styles will do, saving themselves money and the users headaches. This is the opposite of that, and, you're right, is nonsense.
If you develop for a system which permits theming, you have to include that use case in your design. You can’t complain about users making use of system features when you develop for that system.
Who are you to tell the app developer what they're require to support? It's open source. They don't owe you anything. They don't have to make their software work on Thursdays or work in Canada, let alone survive contact with a hundred weird and unpredictable themes.
Bugs are bad, yes.
> Icon Themes can change icon metaphors, leading to interfaces with icons that don’t express what the developer intended.
That is not a problem if you use icons for the purpose they are intended for.
> Changing an app’s icon denies the developer the possibility to control their brand.
Good. My computer is not your billboard. Consistency is more important than your "brand".
> Appstream Screenshots (the screenshots used in GNOME Software or Flathub) are not very useful if they look nothing like the real app does once you install it.
> User Help and Documentation are similarly useless if UI elements on your system are different from the ones described in the documentation.
Nonsense. Theming doesn't affect the layout of a program. If people were that bad at abstraction, then how do they recognize they can sit on a metal chair if they are familiar with wooden ones?
> They are built and tested for the upstream GNOME stylesheet, icons, and fonts, so that’s what they should look like on peoples’ systems.
No. They should look like the user chooses them to look. One way for the user to express their choice is to choose a distribution whose theme they like.
> Changing third-party apps without any QA is reckless, and would be unacceptable on any other platform.
∀x. x without any QA is reckless.