Topic

Staff Topic

Terrific Thursday - New Hairstyles and Skin Colors in the Vanity

And the updates keep on coming!

We just added 12 new hairstyles to the Vanity and converted two subscriber-only hairstyles to free-for-all.

There's also 19 new skin colors to choose from.

Extreme makeover anyone? ;)

Posted 5 months ago by sugarQb Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

1 2 Next
  • There's plenty of ways to discuss personal taste without accusing people of being haters.
    Posted 5 months ago by BogBlossum Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sorry if I've offended.  I do have to admit I'm taken aback at the fact that people have been complaining about this.  
    Posted 5 months ago by diaveborn ♥ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My appearance has changed on its own. Is this a known bug?
    Posted 5 months ago by nekomaki Subscriber! | Permalink
  • nekomaki: not a known bug, and one of the rare cases where we can definitively say "that's impossible", unless you changed to a previously stored look or saved in the wardrobe or vanity: once you make your changes in the wardrobe/vanity everything is computed and stored in flat graphics files (pngs) on a different server. These files cannot possibly be effected by adding new color values elsewhere in the system.
    Posted 5 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Pretty," by definition, is a matter of opinion and not fact.  Aesthetics are not universal, nor have they ever been.  I'm currently looking at the American Heritage Dictionary and I see absolutely no requirements of "convention" in the definition.  Merriam-Webster seems to be the only dictionary that contains a "conventionally accepted" clause and that's only a single subset of several definitions.  It's certainly not in either the Oxford American Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary, which are accepted as the foremost authorities on the vagaries of the English language.  In short: As far as I can tell, the "dictionary sense of the word," as you put it, is not how you're insisting the word be used.  My point is that *your* sense and opinion of what's pretty and what isn't is not the same as anyone else's, and it's wholly unfair to dismiss the experiences and opinions of others when they aren't identical to yours.

    Oh, and there are shades of brown and tan in there too -- don't ignore that just because there are also other colors.  I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wanting additional colors beyond these.  I am saying that many other people do want these colors and find them attractive (and yes, some find them pretty).

    Hating on something does not make someone a hater, by the by.  And I do not believe that observing a behavior is the same as calling someone a name (for example, "You're lying," is not equivalent to, "You're a liar.").  One is describing, the other is an implication that it's an ongoing habit.  I'm sure the intent was not to insult, but to draw your attention to how you were coming across.  Your attitude appears to be both very defensive and hostile, and if you took my observation that there are other opinions and a whole range of human skin colors as an attack on you, I'm sorry.  It wasn't intended to be.  The point was (and is) that "light" is not the only option for "human" and "human" is not the only option for "pretty".
    Posted 5 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • BogBlossum: we didn't remove any of the lighter colors, just added new darker ones (which had been requested often and have been a long time coming).  There are still many more lighter colors than darker ones and the existence of the darker ones shouldn't prevent you from choosing a lighter one — and we intend to add many more skin and hair colors in the glorious future when the Vanity & Wardrobe are merged and we have a better UI for color picking.
    Posted 5 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Everyone who is saying that the new colors all seem to dark and look grey (or blue, etc.) — we'll do some more testing on different systems and monitors and perhaps make some adjustments. We did a few rounds of this before, but we're predominantly a Mac shop and tend to have fancy monitors: Windows (by design) displays everything quite a bit darker than Macs and all monitors have their own idiosyncrasies so it is hard to find the right balance. But, many the new colors (other than the few that are supposed to be grey or blue) are dark, rich reds, oranges, greens, yellows, violets, etc.
    Posted 5 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Play with the brightness/contrast on your monitor, and watch those jewel-tones SHINE.
    Posted 5 months ago by Jennyanydots Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Magic Monkey, thank you for your apology.

    And yes, I am offended that you would want to twist my aversion to dark green, dark grey or dark blue skin tones into some kind of prejudice against darker human skin tones.

    And yes, I do become defensive when I am attacked over an innocent expression of my personal taste in something as innocuous as color selections.

    And I'm glad you took the time to actually look up the word "pretty" but I am puzzled as to why you did not notice that all your sources' definitions include "attractive in a delicate way."  Perhaps because zombie skin just isn't "attractive in a delicate way?"  

    I think that everyone should feel free to request the colors/styles/options that they prefer without having their words twisted or their good intentions questioned.

    Also, if part of the problem is due to the difference between Macs and Windows machines (thank you Stoot!) I hope that  that TS can take a look at their work on a Windows system before releasing vanity/wardrobe updates. If only all misunderstandings could be resolved that easily!
    Posted 5 months ago by BogBlossum Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm just going to be as blunt as I can manage in an attempt to alleviate future misunderstandings.

    1) I'm not trying to say that you have any overt or conscious discrimination happening.  I'm trying to say that you're denying that there are human skin tones in that batch, and that you're claiming that none of new skin tones can allow anyone to look like "pretty people".  You may assemble those two points in any way you wish, but they are nonetheless what is happening.  All I am trying to get across is that there are human skin tones, and that other people will feel pretty when they use any of the new skin tones depending on their personal aesthetics.   I will happily admit was implying that you were being extremely dismissive of those people's opinions; this is because from what you've said here, it appears you're being extremely dismissive of other people's opinions.

    2) To be fair, only 2 of the 3 sources I cited required "delicate" in any definition (the third said "graceful or delicate".  We could go for years down this road by getting in to the definition of delicate, then picking a word in that definition, maybe toss in some back and forth on which subset of a particular definition best applies... but it isn't worth it.  I'm sorry that you can't comprehend that a dark color may be, to someone else, pretty or delicate or beautiful or anything else you'd like to call it.  Just because YOU don't find it pretty does not mean that it is NOT pretty.  It is simply not pretty to you.  That's really all I was trying to get at in the first place.  Well, there's one other point I didn't explicitly state and should have, but that's number 3.

    3) The reason I reacted strongly about what opinions are and I believe that others have reacted strongly to that as well: we don't think that saying "this is no good, I don't like it" is a constructive, considerate, or useful way to request something more.  It's inconsiderate of the people who do like it and have been asking for it (mostly by insinuating that your desires should have been more important than theirs).  It's also inconsiderate of the developers who put work in to providing the new items.  A far better method is to either not mention the current update and post your request elsewhere, or to say something like, "Hey, it's great that we got new skin tones.  I'd also like to see these other kinds."  If you leave out the "this is awful" parts people wouldn't care much beyond perhaps telling you that the ideas forums are usually the best place to ask for new things.  If someone cooked you dinner for free, would you say, "I hate pizza, why didn't you cook lasagna?"  Or would you say, "Hey, thanks for all the work you did!  By the way, lasagna's my favorite, we should have that next time we get together!"  If you said the first to me, I'd react about like I have here or perhaps less politely.  The latter would get an infinitely more civil response from just about anyone.
    Posted 5 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Stoot: Oh well. Time to change my password then?
    Posted 5 months ago by nekomaki Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Anyway, I really like the names of the colors. :)
    Posted 5 months ago by nekomaki Subscriber! | Permalink
  • stoot - Just FYI, I am using a Mac notebook. Its LCD monitor has been calibrated for photographic work, and my eyes aren't seeing "dark, rich reds, oranges, greens, yellows, violets, etc."  On my computer and with my eyes, many of the dark colors do look very similar and not very colorful. Also, I find my avatar's facial features other than eyes hard to distinguish with most of the new colors. None of this matters much to me personally, as my character is designed to look like my great-grandmother and I plan to keep that look -- just trying to be a helpful beta tester.
    Posted 5 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I just want 10% transparency please?
    Posted 5 months ago by Sonneratti's Ghost Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Did Stoot say Vanity and Wardrobe will be combined in the future? Thank you!!!
    Posted 5 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Its fun to play with grotesques but after a while the skin wears thin.

    How about a wraparound image skin?
    Posted 5 months ago by Sonneratti's Ghost Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @stoot: FYI, I use a Mac desktop and a laptop.  I see no difference between Yellow Mellow and Ash Bronze, nor between Rich Blood and Pizza Blister, nor between Bad Mold, Brushed Coal and Violet Night. I wear lighter colored clothing when I chose a dark skin color and visa versa. I change my look a lot and appreciate the new hairstyles and colors. Still waiting for glasses and beards! LOL
    Posted 5 months ago by GreyGoose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've got to say that I'm glad that the particular color I'm using, Brushed Coal, is as dark as it is. I like that there's a nearly black option, personally.
    Posted 5 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 to the fact that the colors look different on different systems/monitors.

    An additional +1 to the fact that on some systems/monitors quite a few of the colors look exactly, or nearly exactly, the same. 
    Posted 5 months ago by Becky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's not just how bright or dark your monitor is, but how the gamma is calibrated. Calibration for YOUR monitor and how it's set up in your space is absolutely key to any degree of color accuracy.

    On Macs, you can do a first-order decent calibration for your set up through System Preferences->Displays->Color->Calibrate

    Hope this helps.
    Posted 5 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • For those having color issues, there's a fantastic resource for getting it fixed here: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
    Posted 5 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Magic Monkey what is your problem?

    Here is my original post: "Thank you! Many of the new hairstyles are so pretty. But I agree that the new skin colors are too dark, too drab, too similar and not very attractive.We already have a thousand ways to look strange and non-human. I wish we had more ways to look like pretty people. "  

    I expressed my gratitude, I agreed with other posters and I expressed a wish for more options. If you have a problem with this then there is just no communicating with you.

    Also, please try to understand that "pretty" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean "something I like" or "something attractive to me" or "good" or even "beautiful. It is not a way of expressing your approval. It may sometimes be used carelessly in conversation as a way of simply expressing approval (oh yeah, that's pretty) but it actually means something specific. 

    "Pretty" refers to a specific quality related to something smaller rather than larger, younger rather than older, feminine rather than masculine, silly rather than serious, sunny rather than shadowy, light rather than heavy, tints rather than shades, superficial rather than deep, familiar rather than strange, safe rather than dangerous. This is why everyone understands what you mean if you say Justin Bieber is pretty. Leonardo DiCaprio used to be pretty but he isn't anymore. 

    This is why it makes sense to describe someone or something as "too pretty." Many people view the paintings of Thomas Kinkaid as way too pretty. A dress that is "too pretty" for a woman or an occasion might be too brightly colored, too youthful, too frilly, etc.  I think most people have a gut-feeling understanding of this quality.  It is not about good/bad or beautiful/ugly. "Pretty" is a quality like formal or dressy or dignified. 

    Here are some other examples: a violet is pretty but a sunflower is not, a Watteau is pretty but a Caravaggio is not, Satie is pretty but Bruckner is not, Victor Herbert is pretty but Richard Wagner is not, Owl City is pretty but Nirvana is not.

    When I say that I wish for colors and styles that are "pretty" I am not being judgmental, I am being specific.  

    If I was trying to explain this to child I would just say I wanted stuff that was more girly-girl. So how about I just leave it at that.   I wish for vanity and wardrobe options that are more girly-girl. 
    Posted 5 months ago by BogBlossum Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It does rather seem, BogBlossum, that in your view dark colors can't be pretty or girly-girl. I think reasonable people can disagree on that question.

    In the end, only Humpty-Dumpty gets to proclaim, "A word means what I mean it to say."

    P.S. I think sunflowers are really pretty, and that's why my butler Asterisk has a sunflower face!
    Posted 5 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So... dark skin can't be "pretty" or "girly-girl"?  Is that really what you mean to say?  Really?
    Posted 5 months ago by Pale Queen Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Love these new options :D I pretty much changed all my looks to their darker shade variants and it feels like a much better fit. Looks great on my (Mac) monitor too.
    Posted 5 months ago by Spirit of Xanadhi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just changed my look - I think I look pretty, girly, etc.  Some people would never dress their Glitch up that way and that's fine, that's why we have choices, but to recognize that some people do consider things pretty that others might not is probably a good thing.
    Posted 5 months ago by diaveborn ♥ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1000 Girly-girl options in vanity and wardrobe! More choices are more better!
    Posted 5 months ago by Miss Bobbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sunflowers are pretty.

    Pretty is totally subjective.

    Also, I freaking LOVE getting more dark colors!
    Posted 5 months ago by Murri Subscriber! | Permalink
  • BogBlossum:

    Excuse me while I copy-paste a lot of things, but I feel the need to really break these posts of yours down to explain why I think a lot of people are getting upset over your words:

    "Pretty" refers to a specific quality related to something smaller rather than larger, younger rather than older, feminine rather than masculine, silly rather than serious, sunny rather than shadowy, light rather than heavy, tints rather than shades, superficial rather than deep, familiar rather than strange, safe rather than dangerous. ... "Pretty" is a quality like formal or dressy or dignified. 

    I realize this is just arguing semantics (and on the internet, no less), but it doesn't make much sense to claim the word 'pretty' has a concrete, objective meaning in the English language and then immediately describe it with extremely subjective adjectives.

    Despite the word having a dictionary definition, what words like 'pretty' actually mean are dependent entirely on context.  The subjectivity comes from all the slight nuances in meanings between various people.  It will not always mean what you think it means to someone else.  'Pretty' means 'formal' or 'dressy' or 'dignified' to you, but not necessarily everyone.

    I would also argue that 'pretty' has nothing to do with 'tint' vs. 'shade' of a color (which are probably the only adjectives you used that have actual objective meanings), but this is me speaking from my artistic background where it's often my job to make even the wildest of colors look 'pretty'.  Even dark 'shades' of a color.  But, again, it's still subjective.  It depends on what that color is combined with, how my client's experiences relate to that color, etc.  But with the right combination I can make, say, the new 'Pizza Blister' shade look very delicate, very pretty, and very 'girly-girl' to a lot of people.  (I'm thinking it would look very pretty with other red-brown shades and some light tones of olive, personally.)

    The point is: subjectivity.  It exists.

    When I say that I wish for colors and styles that are "pretty" I am not being judgmental, I am being specific. 

    When your original post describes the new colors as "too dark, too drab, too similar and not very attractive" to you and follow it up by suggesting they're "non-human" looking and will not help you in your goal to make "pretty people" avatars, I would actually say this is being judgmental because you appear to insist that words like 'pretty' (or 'girly-girl', even) mean the same thing to you as they do to everyone else when...they don't.

    Furthermore, when you just got finished saying you thought the new skin tones were "unattractive", I think that most people reading your post can only assume that you then think the new skin tones also look "strange" and "non-human" purely by the juxtaposition of your words.  Which I will say: jewel tones aside, several of the new skin tones can, in fact, be found on real-life humans.  Real-life 'pretty people', really.  If you did not, in fact, mean to say this, you may just want to clarify this as such.

    I realize that you want more lighter and neutral skin tones for our Glitchens.  I realize that you think those colors would also be prettier to you than the dark ones.  That's totally fine.  It's your opinion.  But I don't abide by your ill logic within the defense of your opinion.
    Posted 5 months ago by Classical Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So what I get from your post BogBlossom is that no one can be pretty if they choose any of the new colors.  

    That's not objective.  That's a statement of your opinion about skin colors.
    Posted 5 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Classica While I agree entirely with you main point, I think you misread something.

    "Pretty" is a quality like formal or dressy or dignified.

    I'm pretty sure BogBlossom is saying that 'pretty' is a quality in the same way that formal, dressy, and dignified are qualities.

    All of which, of course, are JUST AS SUBJECTIVE and culturally-bound as "pretty."
    Posted 5 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Pascale:
    Ahh, my bad!  Yes, I misread that.  Thanks for pointing it out.

    Though, heh, it still leaves me just as confused by BogBlossum's posts as I was originally.  Actually, now maybe even more so... as you point out, those qualities--all qualities, in general--are hella subjective and I don't see how that original intent actually adds to his/her argument at all...

    /scratches her wee Glitchen head
    Posted 5 months ago by Classical Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just wanted to say that I love my kelp green skin!
    Posted 5 months ago by Candy Warhol Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I actually went through 42 pages of Google results for "too pretty" before I got bored with it.  The incredibly vast majority referred to people -- most of those were reactions to an article about whether or not a woman could be "too pretty" and thus other women would not like her or the infamous t-shirt about being "too pretty to do homework".  A few were food/drink (too pretty to eat) and there were a couple about flowers.  The exception was a really interesting article about trademark law.  (I'll note that this equated "too pretty" and "too aesthetically pleasing" and move on.)  Nowhere did I see any reference to other inanimate objects (paintings, clothing, etc.) or any contexts relating to that.  If it's so universally common to refer to things in this way and understood in this sense, why can't I find it?

    Classical has made excellent points, especially this one: "[S]ubjectivity.  It exists."  That nicely encompasses most of what people have been saying.  I can't guarantee the intentions of others, but my intention has been to point out that there are a) other opinions and tastes, and b) that you're coming across in a way you may not have intended.  Communication takes two critical elements: the speaker's intent and the listener's understanding.  You can only control one of those things directly, and if someone is trying to clarify the latter to you, reacting as if you're under a personal attack is less than productive.  For the record, I fully comprehend your intent as you've stated it.

    My problem, as you term it, is that you seem either unwilling or unable to comprehend what other people are trying to communicate to you and that I can't think of many ways to phrase it that I or others haven't tried.  My previous analogy was addressing your statements toward the skin colors, as we had not been discussing the hairstyles.  You did say thank you, although based on the whole of what you said, the thanks only applied to the hairstyles.  My point was that there was no need whatsoever to be critical of what was given and that your request would have been received better if that part had been left out. 

    While Classical and Pascale have recently covered most of what I would have tried again to say, I want to point out the critical sentence that made me feel your post merited a response. "I wish we had more ways to look like pretty people."  No matter how many different ways I approach that in context, I can't take it or your follow-up statements as meaning anything other than "Dark or non-typical human skin is not a way to look like pretty people."  And yes, I find that offensive on a vast number of levels.  (For the record, people's skin can also be red, blue, grey, and orange, depending on what they've been doing and/or eating.  I assume that there's at least some range of possibility for other colors that I haven't encountered yet.)

    P.S. We still could spend years dissecting the details and cultural construction of "delicate," "formal," "dressy," "masculine," "feminine," (those two I'd avoid in the future too, see this thread to find out where that road leads) "silly," "serious," or "beautiful."  But I won't, though I will point out that "beautiful" is a synonym for "pretty" (and will not debate what "synonym" means either).
    Posted 5 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ok, harriette just chose a darker shade of pale :)
    Posted 5 months ago by harriette Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually "beautiful" is not at all a synonym for "pretty."

    Words are not getting through to you so I will resort to pictures.

    Beautiful but not pretty: here, here, here.

    Pretty but not beautiful: here, here, here.

    Very close to NONE of the fine art produced in the last 100 years can be described as "pretty."  Picasso, Pollock or Braque would have been horrified if their works were described as "pretty."  Does that mean that none of it is beautiful? Of course not, because "beautiful" and "pretty" are not synonyms.  Try thinking about architecture. Very few beautiful buildings or monuments are "pretty."

    As for subjectivity, yes there are areas of disagreement. For example, most fans of Thomas Kinkade think his works are beautiful.  And some people hate modern art so much because it is not pretty that won't admit that any of it can be beautiful.  And some people are just tone deaf and are oblivious to the whole issue.  But most educated adults find it easy to make the distinction between pretty and beautiful, especially if you give them a minute to think about it.

    I think this distinction is at the root of our miscommunication. However, I think your unwillingness to assume the good intentions of those you disagree with has made communication even more difficult.  It is also very difficult to communicate with a person who ignores the positive and focuses on the negative.

    Once again, I will try to point out that like you, I am grateful to Tiny Speck for the new options and that like you, I found many posts on this thread that I agree with.
    Posted 5 months ago by BogBlossum Subscriber! | Permalink
  • They might not be synonyms.  But they're still both subjective.  And when you're talking about darker skin tones, I'd make the claim that they are beautiful AND pretty and fantastic and amazing and everything else to a whole lot of people.
    Posted 5 months ago by diaveborn ♥ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Seems like so many of the skin tones are muddied, compared to the clearer hair colors.  I love the darker hair "gem" colors and would love most all of them as skin tones.  The current darker skin tones seem blah - too dark, as are the current lighter skin tones - too light. I'd love to see a combo of the skin/hair palettes, and for you to be able to select any of the colors on either skin or hair (since I think there is a skin color or two that I'd love to see in the hair colors).  (And, yes trying to get this thread back on track vice arguing semantics over adjectives.)
    Posted 5 months ago by Uniquely Prime Subscriber! | Permalink
  • (Thanks, Uniquely Prime :)

    We will probably do some revisions to the new colors next week (still testing) and in the long run (again, once we do the Vanity/Wardrobe combination & redesign) we'll have a lot more space for colors.

    Skin and hair colors aren't swappable because they are made in totally different ways (different methods of combining layers of shading and tint) because the hair color settings need a lot finer control over shadow and highlight contrast.

    But, in any case, there will be more in the future.
    Posted 5 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have new things! I am pretty! I am a LOVELY new shade of dark green, I have Stanley on my head, and I'm wearin' a DRESS! With FEATHERS!

    See? PRETTY!
    Posted 5 months ago by Jennyanydots Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 Next