----- Original Message -----
On 8 November 2016 at 20:43, Christian Schaller
<cschalle(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I would say though that focusing on having a logo is limiting our approach
> in my opinion. You quickly recognize a Ubuntu screenshot due to their
> orange
> theme for instance, or a mac screenshot due to those 3 red, yellow, green
> buttons
> on their window decorations. So even without looking at the logos you
> quickly identify those
> systems when you see them.
Fedora 10 had its own window decorations and icon theme. That has
changed and it is fine. Showcasing the original GNOME experience is
good and I still believe the logo in the panel [1] an non-disruptive
option to consider.
Fedora 10 didn't use GNOME 3.
I also already explained why the logo in the top left corner is problematic
(is it a control, is it a menu, is it separate from the activities control?).
Your screenshot is confusing, because you made other changes to your system.
You have a menu next to the logo. There's already a logo in our setup where
there is a menu there, in the Classic session.
On 15 November 2016 at 17:28, Bastien Nocera
<bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Most of GNOME's visual identity also has design foundations, they're not
> gratuitous. Changing the visual identity (as opposed to making something
> based on GNOME recognisable) means throwing away part of the user testing
> and holistic approach to the desktop's design (from boot, all the way to
> the
> apps).
The user testing phase here is a bit overestimated. They only tested
it once on 7 (seven) people, and the test covered tasks (like setting
up the email client), visual identity was hardly elaborated.
Visual identity wasn't explicitly worked on, but changing the visual identity
would change controls.
You can
read about the whole process in the blog.
What blog?
Boot screen is fairly
independent, and the applications could be left alone.
I also explained the reasoning about the boot screen.