Michiel Sikma wrote:
Op 29-jun-2006, om 16:14 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschreven:
On 6/29/06, Mark Shuttleworth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Étienne Bersac wrote:
For me, the branding on the Breezy background was great - it belnded
in very well with the backdrop - an generally looked 'cool'.
Agree, but it was too dark. Especially if we have window shadow.
I've no problem if there are SOME desktop wallpapers included that
have
strong branding, just not the default. The default should be
distinctive
enough that people recognise it from screenshots without any logo-style
branding. And of course, it's great to have ubuntu-branded wallpapers
in
gnome-look and other websites!
Mark
[I've been wanting to say this for a while but have been waiting for
the perfect time to mention it... I don't think this is it, but if I
wait any longer I might miss my chance...]
I greatly prefer desktop wallpaper that has some photographic or
graphical elements to it. Whenever I see a wallpaper that has just
some swish or a few lines I think, "what, coudn't they come up with
something better?" I've just in the last few days set up a new laptop
and was glad to see the tree/gears background and am using it.
For inspiration, I strongly suggest looking at what other OSs are
doing. Most computers come from the manufucaturer with the maker's
branding on the wall paper. Stop into your favorite computer store and
look at the wall papers on Toshibas, HPs, Sonys and the like and see
what they're doing. There are some great designs out there. Even if we
don't put the [U|ED|K]buntu logo on the graphic, I think we can come
up with something truly exciting to look at... something where people
won't want to put icons on the desktop because they don't want to
cover up the picture.
--Matthew Nuzum
www.bearfruit.org
newz2000 on freenode
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
I personally feel that the wallpapers that are included by default
should be as neutral as possible. They should also not really try
anything valiant in terms of graphic design and should generally be
pure. All major operating systems currently do this right. As much as
it might seem boring, I fully support the "random graphic drizzle" that
one finds in default wallpapers.
Agreed. The trouble with a real picture is that it draws your eye to
understand and explore it. Attractive nonsense, on the other hand, does
not "call you to attention". The default desktop should be soothing,
calm, interesting but not have any hotspots or things which your brain
tries to understand.
We *do* want people to put their own icons on the desktop. We ship with
no icons on the desktop by default because we don't want to tread on
their precious space.
Mark
|
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
