[ubuntu-art] Mark's Comments on Branding

[Michiel Sikma]

Op 29-jun-2006, om 17:00 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschreven:

> On 6/29/06, Michiel Sikma <michiel at thingmajig.org> wrote:
>> Op 29-jun-2006, om 16:14 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschre
>> > 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> PS: most of the vendor-specific wallpapers consist of random stock
>> art plus their logo. I don't usually find them very interesting.
>
> First, forgive me if my first e-mail sounded too forceful, I just want
> to say that I am giving my opinions and I'm 100% comfortable if the
> art team goes a different route.

That's okay. It didn't seem that way to me.

>
> The reason why I suggest looking at what retail computers use is
> because retail computers have to face one of the toughest sells...
> they have to attract potential buyers to a particular computer from
> across the room when there are 30 other computers also doing the same.
>
> There is much more thought put into those desktop wall papers than
> just, "what's a cool new way we can show off our logo?" Big companies
> have art-teams, and industrial artists pouring over every little
> detail about a computer's aesthetics in order to make people say, "I
> want this one!" I have a great deal of respect for the R&D money those
> bigger companies put into those designs. I think it's foolish to not
> even consider what others are doing.

The thing is, those vendors are so major that they always have their  
own in-company artists working on all kinds of things. Not just  
wallpapers, but mostly general art direction of projects such as  
websites, brochures, flyers, information booklets, advertisements...  
it's my understanding that those things are usually outsourced to  
external companies with the vendor's own team working on the  
conceptual design. I'm not sure what your experience is with such  
companies, but I've found that they're usually very restrictive,  
never going past the typical design of just a moderately interesting  
background plus the logo in a prominent position. If you have places  
for me to see the better wallpapers by such companies, then please  
link me, but I still haven't ever seen anything that made me go "wow".

>
> Also, I come from a web-desgin and web-usability background. I've been
> working with artists for years and I have great respect for those who
> way, "My studies show..." instead of "I like..." or "I prefer..." I've
> sat in many meetings where executives make decisions about what they
> think users will like and then watched as the design failed because
> they didn't bother even asking the users.
>
> Ubuntu is not for artists alone, and you need to appeal to engineers,
> business people and a variety of other types in addition to those
> experienced at producing art.

But we aren't aiming our wallpapers to those who can appreciate good  
digital art. If that were the case, I would have tried providing some  
of the older digital posters that I've made a while back that heavily  
incorporate 3D elements along with light effects. I believe that the  
lack of neutrality that such things offer is also the reason why, for  
example, this image by Jimmac (http://jimmac.musichall.cz/images/ 
wallpapers/nld-warpspeed.jpg) is touted to be a "leftover" on his site.

I believe that neutrality is what will allow people to have a good- 
looking default suite that does not intrude on their typical  
expectations of the looks of a system and will invite them to go grab  
their own wallpaper later. Even the most basic users do so.

> The problem with pure photos is that its hard to make them stand out
> as being distinctly *buntu. Also it's difficult to find a photo that
> is bright enough to catch the eye and yet has dark regions for people
> to place their icons. We'd need something that has darker colors on
> the left and graduates to more vivid and contrasting colors on the
> right, without having that pure gradient look of the gnome 1.x
> desktops.

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.

Michiel

PS: I'll brainstorm more tonight, but I gotta wrap this e-mail up  
since I'm going to a Google seminar tonight!