[ubuntu-art] Mark's Comments on Branding

[Michiel Sikma]

Op 29-jun-2006, om 16:14 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschreven:

> On 6/29/06, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at canonical.com> 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
> ubuntu-art at lists.ubuntu.com
> 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.

As for other wallpapers included by default, I think that the best  
ones are pure photos. There are billions of great-quality free  
license photos online that may be used for this purpose.

Unfortunately, people are still going to put icons on their desktop,  
and like I've stated earlier, the shadow underneath the text  
underneath icons just isn't enough to make the text show up as  
readable on very light backgrounds, so we're still somewhat  
restricted to darker wallpapers.

PS: most of the vendor-specific wallpapers consist of random stock  
art plus their logo. I don't usually find them very interesting.

Michiel