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.
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. You can
read about the whole process in the blog. Boot screen is fairly
independent, and the applications could be left alone.
[1]
https://www.linux.org.ru/gallery/13033433.jpg
Misha
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Misha
English / Español / Italiano / Русский