damianvila at gmail.com
Fri Dec 7 19:43:31 GMT 2007
In functional terms, the best "wallpaper" would be a plain, solid,
blueish, not too dark, not too light, not too saturated color. Something
like #405580. And with the color going darker against the edges of the
It's not distracting. I gives enough contrast against _any_ icon you
throw over it. It's neutral. And the blueish tint leaves the best part
of the eye, the Fovea centralis, full of cones, free to detect the
important changes in the display, where actions should happen.(The
darker edges are used to let the peripheral vision detect changes more
Any other choice of wallpaper is just an artistic compromise.
Wallpapers are, like most non functional GUI elements such as windows
decoration, typographic choice, color palettes, etc. chosen to convey a
message that goes far beyond mere functionalism.
This is the purpose of this artwork team, to agree on a strong, artistic
statement that convey the values that the Ubuntu distribution tries to
send to the final user.
Or at least, that's how understand it (I may also be wrong.)
P.S: I'll be glad to explain to you at any moment the design choices I
made to create the animals (including the elephant) wallpapers, and why
it works and was (is) supported by so many people. Curiously enough, not
many people asked me how I made them and why. One of the people who
_did_ talked with me about the wallpapers is participating in this same
> not at all. computer desktops don't exist to be appreciated as a singular work
> of eye-catching art. they are there to be transparent interfaces to
> the underlying productivity offered by the computer. they must be easy on
> the eye for sustained periods of use.
> the /primary/ value of a desktop is not aesthetic, it is functional.
> this, however does not disqualify them from having an ambition to be stylish.
> that's a good thing and should be encouraged as a secondary design pursuit.
More information about the ubuntu-art