Re: GNOME colors

["digitect" <digitect mindspring com>]

Maybe we're not too far apart...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joakim Ziegler" <joakim helixcode com>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: GNOME colors


> In particular since one of the stated reasons for that redesign was to, and
I
> quote (don't remember who this was from, might have been Elliot) "Get rid of
> that horrid brown".

Ok, so some hate brown, some like it for traditional reasons. I can agree that
it doesn't sparkle. If it ends up going, so be it. I just thought since it is
somewhat part of the brand identity for historical reasons, it might be good
to at least maintain it in an accent color.


> Actually, [color is] not entirely subjective, although it's taken a rather
> subjective turn. There are in fact very well accepted theories of color that
> deal with what sort of message and feel certain colors convey (although this
> isn't global, it's fairly uniform in the western hemisphere, at least. Let's
> not get into design and color choice for maximum market impact worldwide,
> it's the realm of million-dollar consulting companies.)

Well, as an American I can easily agree with this strategy. But it' very
appealing to me that GNOME is so international. I always thought the earth
tones used in the past came from some sort of Mexican/South American
tradition. Not trying to stir the pot again, but I for one, was interpreting
the color from an alternative perspective and it was appealing that way. I,
too, have studied tons of color theory (Joseph Albers, Mondrian and friends)
but in the end it's going to come down to somebody's subjective decision.


> I think there are many ways to convey GNOME's character through the
graphical
> design, feel and content of the website. Assuming that we have to use the
> same colors on the web site as are prevalent in the icons (which make up a
> very small area of the desktop) to do so is in my opinion an extremely
> simplistic view.

Maybe you misunderstand my verbosities. I'm not if favor of using a color
scheme based *on* the icons. I think the site should be neutral. That's
Neutral, as in hue-less, or minimally. Then the art from the desktop can stand
out. Of course I understand your hesitancy to depend on the desktop art given
it's current dormant state of development. But I'm interested in seeing that
prosper, too, in fact, more so than the web site. So maybe I'm on the wrong
list, but I think both can and should work together to benefit from the
synergy. It's a clever way to take advantage of the spartan volunteer work
force.


> I want that 5 second visitor. There are a lot of them. We want to reach
them,
> we want to pull them in, we want to show them what GNOME is about.

You and me both. We just have to figure out how to do that.


> Leaving branding and marketing up to companies are not an option. I love
> Helix Code, it's why I work for it, but I wouldn't want marketing and
> branding of GNOME to be handed over to Helix Code or any other corporate
> entity. It's far too important for that.

I agree. GNOME needs to stand on its own. And I do want it to have it's own
identity, distinct from anybody else out there. But I see it as more of a
family, not a singular product brand. But maybe I'm not thinking broadly about
it enough.


> And yes, an approach like that would certainly attract a certain group of
> users. But we're really talking mass-market appeal here, especially for the
> main www.gnome.org site. We're charged with an extremely important
> responsibility, namely to be the GNOME project's face to the world, and to
be
> the main gate through which the project recruits both new users, developers
> and supporters. There is significant strength in numbers, and I don't want
to
> lose a single one of those potential users because our chosen design appeals
> to "a better caliber of folks".

I agree.


> There seems to be some conception that we're mainly making a set of sites
for
> developers. We're not. Developers are important, they get their part of the
> site, but GNOME is just about ready to go onto the mass market of desktops,
> and to take on Windows directly. That's what this is about, offering a
> high-quality, free alternative to all those average users out there.

Yes, I think the site is currently far too skewed towards the developers. Or
rather, I should say that I just don't think there's enough accomodation to
the new user. That's why I'm in favor of splitting content right down the
middle and have proposed a structure around this scheme. Users need the front
end and it needs to be far better than what we currently have.