On Jun 30, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Joao Inacio wrote:
On 6/30/06, Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michiel Sikma wrote:
They don't necessarily have to be distinctly Ubuntu, I believe.
That's up
for debate. I think that nice photos that are included by default
can be
abstract enough as well simply to be good filler material.
Besides, how
would you make them classify as Ubuntu-ish, anyway? Do they all
need to be
brown, too? They'll do just fine being diverse.
They do need to be "distinctive" and in keeping with the rest of the
default theme.
By distinctive, I mean that you should know when looking at a low-
res
screenshot that it is an Ubuntu machine. We have achieved this
extremely
well with Hoary -> Dapper. Kubuntu is less distinctive, but I'm
sure Ken
will come up with something that can be as well-known yet still
true to the
KDE spirit.
A good default wallpaper is an art. Truly.
- distinctive (passes the "low-res screenshot" test)
- not distracting (hence the preference for abstract art with low
contrast)
- not too bright (it becomes tiring on the eyes)
- respects typical placement (people tend to want to put icons
in the
corners so don't put a lot of detail there)
- low memory (balance resolution with RAM)
- stretchable (4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10)
Yes, when people go get their OWN wallpaper they may well go
outside of
these constraints. But the default wallpaper has to live within them.
It would be really, really nice if someone would write this up as
a wiki
page as "guidelines for an Ubuntu wallpaper"!
Mark
Hi, i'm mostly a lurker on this list but anyway:
- How much of this "ubuntu distinctiveness" is really needed on the
other included wallpapers (not default)?
Even though this i completely agree on the default wallpaper, from my
humble POV a few extra wallpapers that didnt quite follow the rules to
the point, but did a very good job at pleasing a user (like myself)
would only be welcome.
Don't get me wrong, i still think all wallpapers should match those
criteria, just not as strictly for the non-default ones.
From my experience, the space is limited on the CD's and pixmaps
tend to have larger file sizes which might very well be better used
in another manner. If the pic in question does not say "ubuntu" or
"kubuntu" in a distinctive way, more so. We are trying to create the
best impression of the distri itself as possible, after all. I might
be wrong on my assumption, but I guess that it would be better to put
them in an extra package in universe (perhaps this exists already and
I have simply missed it until now?).
Bye,
Ken
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
