Re: GNOME colors

[Joakim Ziegler <joakim helixcode com>]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 05:47:32AM +0500, Ryan Muldoon wrote:

> I really do think that there is a given palette that people think of
> when they think of GNOME.
> The Evolution icons still are using reds, greyscale, and yellow, and a
> bit of brown, so I don't know what you mean.....they are still
> consistent with the previous icons.

They're not particularly brown, they're not particularly subdued in color
(even using some orange arrows, etc.), and so on. I suggest you take a look
at the screenshots. If anything, Tuomas' style is maintained in the style of
drawing, not the colors.


>> I agree in principle, although I'm not sure it's necessarily a very healthy
>> restriction to impose. For instance, the current www.gnome.org site doesn't
>> follow the GNOME icon color scheme at all, while the old www.gnome.org site
>> did. I think there's little disagreement that the current site is a vast
>> improvement over the old one.

> well, in some respects yes, but in others, I think it is much
> worse.  The older websites weren't as fancy, etc, and used tables
> poorly, but they got some things right.  The blue swoosh things on the
> current website are just wastes of screen real estate, and don't match
> the normal GNOME colors.  The menus are graphics rather than text, which
> is not wise for many reasons.  Their colors are also odd.  The
> "Computing Made Easy" slogan I also think is bad.  But having a white
> background is nice, as it is clean looking.

Well, those might be your opinions, but the last redesign was met with
roaring approval through all stages of the design, by the entire GNOME
marketing group, and considered an improvement in all ways.

The idea that adding space (and subsequently making it look better with
graphical elements) is a waste of screen realestate is a seriously misguided
one, as anyone versed in graphical design will tell you. The slogan was
chosen by the GNOME marketing group, which included just about everyone
relevant to GNOME marketing at the time, such as Elliot, Miguel, Bart, and
quite a few others.

To reiterate, you're entitled to your opinions, but it would be unwise to
represent them as the one and only truth.


> I think that you are ignoring the fact that you can still easily produce
> contrast.  Those low saturation colors are extremely suitable for things
> in the background - muted highlighting, etc.  Black and white, and
> proper use of reds will give us plenty of contrast.  I am by no means
> suggesting that we put brown text on a yellow background - that is just
> silly.  Black text on a white background should be a given.  However, I
> think that having the "decorative" parts of the site being somewhat
> muted is an advantage rather than a disadvantage.  It doesn't distract
> the user's eyes from the content.  This is something that people who
> need to get at information appreciate.  

> How can you buiild brand recognition if the colors/feel you use have
> nothing to do with the product?

Coca-Cola is black (well, dark brown). Yet, the label and all other marketing
is red and white. Pepsi is the same color as coke, but their colors are
mainly blues and whites, with some red. Etc.

You're confusing the brand and the product, which is detrimental to both. The
branding (and subsequently the website) has a completely different set of
goals than what the look and feel of the desktop has. I outlined this in the
previous mail as well.


> I am not suggesting that we organize the site as we would a
> desktop.  they are two different media.  However, I don't think that the
> website should influence the desktop either - I don't know how you would
> do this in the first place.  I think that the "tigert" feel is rather
> nice.  I am one of those people that use their computer for 10 hours a
> day, so I appreciate the aesthetic quality.  One ot the reasons I enjoy
> using GNOME so much is that it is rather attractive and sophisticated
> feeling.  If we were to make a "great" GNOME website with magenta and
> orange, I would call it a poor GNOME website.  In my experience, there
> is a difference between a great generic website and a great branded
> website.

Well, you're not going to be using the website for 10 hours straight, that's
my exact point. This is just one of the many ways in which a website differs
from a desktop (the others being the goal of using it, the portion of screen
realestate it takes up, the context (surfing around versus working), and in
short just about everything else).


>> In short, I'm fine with using the GNOME icon inspired colors, if we can build
>> a great website on it. But I'm not willing to make it the deciding factor in
>> what the final site is going to look like. There are other, more important
>> priorities.

> I just want to make sure that we website actually represents
> GNOME.  That should be the most important deciding factor.  I'm sure you
> agree with me.....perhaps we just see different ways of arriving at that
> goal.

There are plenty of ways a website can represent GNOME. The GNOME project
founders and leaders felt that the current website represented GNOME very
well, at the time I made it, and it has absolutely zero brown.

As I said it before, if you can make a color scheme that uses what you fele
are GNOME colors and make it an attractive, professional-looking, sleek site
that will appeal to new users and veterans alike, by all means. But I repeat,
I will not make it a deciding factor. The quality of the site in general, and
the image it projects, is much more important.

-- 
Joakim Ziegler - Helix Code web monkey - joakim helixcode com - Radagast IRC
      FIX sysop - free software coder - FIDEL & Conglomerate developer
            http://www.avmaria.com/ - http://www.helixcode.com/