Re: GNOME colors

["digitect" <digitect mindspring com>]

From: "Joakim Ziegler" <joakim helixcode com>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: GNOME colors

> I think there's little disagreement that the current site is a vast
> improvement over the old one.

I'm not sure I would agree. One of the things I first noticed about GNOME
was the softer tone of the web site. I tire of getting hit with primaries
and contrast at every page I go to, and the old GNOME site was a refreshing
change. (No offense intended Joakim, just my preference.)

>
> Additionally, some of the colors in the GNOME color scheme (especially as
> used on the old site) are plain bad, visually. Low-saturation greyish
browns
> are extremely dreary colors (while reducing the contrast of the entire
site,
> and thus the readability). There are also different goals for the visual
> design of a desktop people are supposed to use for 10 hours a day, every
day,
> and a website that serves as an information and promotion channel for that
> same desktop. Specifically, you have a much shorter time to make and
> impression, so being less subdued (in color use, design, etc.) is
necessary
> to capture the user and build brand recognition.

This is *definitely* a matter of aesthetic opinion. What you say is "dreary"
I think is easy on the eyes. Fact is, when you stare at a monitor 10 hours a
day, a slightly lower intensity and contrast is more desirable. (Not too
much of course, just a little.)

Also, I don't care about making a visual splash and capturing the casual
visitor to the site through theatrics. GNOME is better. That's why you would
want to use it. Let's make the site *clear*, useful and navigable and let
the user judge for himself whether or not GNOME is better. Sooner or later,
flash runs out of steam, and they'll go on to something else. There's a
saying in architecture: "If you can't make it good, make it big. If you
can't make it big, paint it red." Let's just make it good.


> Well, I agree that brand recognition is nice. However, as it stands, GNOME
> has practically no brand at all, beyond the desktop itself (and modelling
a
> web site strictly over a desktop is a very bad idea). Rather than assuming
> that we should let the look of the desktop dictate the look of the
website, I
> think it would be reasonable to have a back and forth effect....

I agree, with the caveat that the desktop is basically so flexible that it
doesn't really have a look (especially with upcoming meta-themeing
flexibility). *Except* for the icons ...

... which is why I'm a big proponent of keeping the site very minimal (of
color) except for the desktop art we choose to use. It expresses the
aesthetic of GNOME better than anything else.

Ok, now my turn. Try these on:

http://www.mindspring.com/~steve_hall/gnome/comp-stevehall03.htm

http://www.mindspring.com/~steve_hall/gnome/comp-stevehall02d.htm (This one
is *not* intended to be a real proposal, just a way of testing icons against
a gray on charcoal scheme.)

The first test comp is obviously neutral. But as you can see from the
developer alternative, with neutrality comes flexibility. If we make the
main GNOME site's colors too strong, the myriad related application and
project sites will have much more of a struggle to maintain/create their own
identity while still incorporating some flavor of the central GNOME site.
Take the current site's "pastels". Anybody else using them? Of course not,
because it's too strong to be identifiable as anything other than the main
site.

I guess I'm trying to say that these pages, like the desktop, is a canvas on
which many projects and applications are painted. It isn't supposed to stand
out, just be a good supporting structure. Let's keep it clear and somewhat
neutral. It can still be kickin if the composition is proportional and we
express style through the subtler things.

Steve  [ digitect mindspring com ]