[ubuntu-art] Mark's Comments on Branding

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Michiel Sikma wrote:
>
> 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.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/attachments/20060629/18b3d3e3/attachment-0001.htm