Re: GNOME colors

[Ryan Muldoon <rpmuldoon students wisc edu>]

> On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 02:56:31AM +0500, Ryan Muldoon wrote:
> > While I don't have the time to do a color comp at the moment
(finals),
> > I'd like to put in my thoughts on the web site's color scheme:
> 
> > 1. Pastels should go away - They appear nowhere in gnome artwork. 
In my
> > mind, they are almost the opposite of the general gnome aesthetic
> > concept.
> 
> I agree about the pastels. However, I think it's dangerous to invoke a
"GNOME
> aestetic concept", since there's no such concept, in reality, it's
mostly a
> coincidence, and caused by Tuomas doing a large part of the original
icons
> and so on. Interestingly, the icons Tuomas has been doing lately (for
> instance for Evolution) have less of the brownish, earthy colors.
> 
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.


> > 2. Reds, Browns, Yellows, dark green, and greyscale seem to be the
most
> > used colors in gnome artwork.  I think the website should reflect
this.
> 
> > 3. I am partial to continuing in the Tigert tradition for artwork -
it
> > is the distinctive GNOME feel.
> 
> > 4. The background-oriented colors should be subdued and earthy
(yellow,
> > white, grey, light brown), and then use the stronger colors for text
> > (black), links (red/rust/maroonish, dark green) and content.
> 
> > As I've said before, the helixcode.com website did a good job of
> > reflecting the GNOME feel - we should try to do similarly (but not
use
> > the same look, obviously).  I think it is important to reflect the
feel
> > of the GUI while we are promoting it.
> 
> 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.


> 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.
> 
> 
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?

> > While in general primary colors are nice and strong and such, they
have
> > little to do with the GNOME look and feel.  It's important to
consider
> > this when we are making the website.  People should be immediately
be
> > able to tell that it is the GNOME website, and not something else.
> 
> 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. We're in
a
> position to break new ground and make the best GNOME site ever. If the
choice
> stands between a good site that has a strong visual bond to the
desktop, and
> a great site that breaks some of those conventions, I'll go for the
great one
> any day.
> 
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.

> 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.


    --Ryan