Re: GNOME colors

[Joakim Ziegler <joakim helixcode com>]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 10:37:16AM -0500, digitect wrote:
>> 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.

I think there are ways to retain the image in the colors without preserving
that specific brown. I'll write a message about this with a color comp of my
own after I finish this message.


>> 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 that I'm aware of, at least not consciously. Anyway, from my
understanding, it seems that it's Asia that's the joker in the color
symbolism deck, most of the western hemisphere has a rather similar culture
when it comes to this.


> 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.

Definitely. I hope it ends up being a clear majority decision, though. I also
have the feeling that disagreement might be larger during a discussion than
when people actually sit down and look at different suggestions.


>> 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 hope so too. It seems to me that when a new, fresh piece of design that
doesn't rely overly on the existing corpus gets injected into the mix, the
totality benefits. It's like including outside DNA into an overly homogenic
gene pool, which has become somewhat stagnant; it promotes change and
development, and tends towards a new equilibrium. I know some people have
considered some of the icon and other graphics work Tuomas has done at Helix
Code to be inspiration in this manner (it has more of a Helix look than the
traditional GNOME look), and I hope the a web site that does new things,
while still respecting its origins, can have the same sort of effect.


>> 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.

Well, you're right in some respects. This is one of the reasons I'm a little
afraid of relying too much on the desktop imagery. While the desktop
environment is an important part of GNOME, it's also the part that gets the
most attention (because it's easiest to get a concept of). But GNOME is a lot
more than the desktop (in fact, the desktop is kind of a coincidence).

It's difficult to brand something this large and diverse. I'm hoping we can
succeed by being fairly abstract in our approach. Possibly, we'll just have
to say "this is what we want GNOME to be associated with", instead of "what
is it people associate GNOME with?", because people's perceptions at the
moment are very varied.


I'm doing a color comp right now, which is a little bolder than the things
that have been proposed so far, yet, I think, might be a pleasant surprise.
More of that in a little while.

-- 
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/