----- Original Message -----
On 02/07/2018 11:16 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> It might not be, but we're talking about making Fedora "warmer" and
> the background stamp/watermark isn't the best solution to adding branding
> to the background. I think it's a conversation to have, even as it's
> to the bigger picture.
The latter concern (watermark) is certainly relevant to the bigger picture.
> The dichotomy isn't that one, it's about what Fedora, or other distros,
> or needs to be able to implement that differentiation, and whether it's
> something that upstream thinks is a good idea, and therefore makes it
> for downstreams to differentiate.
This is of course a valid and specific reference point to frame the
issue with. I think my frame - from the Fedora branding perspective - is
a bit different though:
As stated earlier in the thread, I would rather Fedora's visual identity
not be delineated with logos and labels and specific branding colors,
rather the look and the feel of the system be associated with Fedora and
be part of that identity. Similar to how you described Muji goods, or
recognize a Dodge from its front grill design across models. Relying
overly on labeling for visual identity is problematic.
We cannot just rely on the upstream visuals to do that because the
competition also uses that same upstream.
But if the front grill is the differentiator, upstream can provide a way
to easily swap out this front grill, no?
Say you'd want to change the default grain texture in the lock screens, to
something different (maybe better, maybe more recognisable), making that
easy to do could be done upstream.
Filling in slots with logos doesn't seem like the right thing,
does it? Because the visuals are the same, with a different insignia on
the slot. It's like a (gonna date myself) Geo Prizm vs a Toyota Corolla
where it literally was the same car off the same factory line with a
different insignia plopped on the front and on the steering wheel.
The entire notion of the desktop having a visual identity is rough
particularly with the (quite agreeable) principle that the user's work
should be the focus and the desktop should fade into the background to
support that work.
I think, probably, the most important differentiation should come in the
integration the desktop has with the underlying system, the out of the
box experience. Probably, a great way to start tackling that could be
looking at the boot up experience - I think all sides agree it's a bit
awkward / flickery / non-ideal for a good impression, right?
I am completely in favor of having an understated brand presence on the
desktop itself if we can work together on something like this?
That's out of my scope (technically), but yes, a better and more polished
out-of-the-box experience (boot-up or otherwise) is definitely something
we need to work on. However Matt mentioned that this ("awesome functionality",
which I equate to "technical excellence", or "attention to details")
enough of a differentiator.
> For example, we went back and forth over the years as to whether
> panel in the Settings should reflect the GNOME version and logo, or the
> one. The WIP changes make it straight forward to brand that part of the
> and will mean less work for downstream to adapt to their needs.
> I thought I made that clear. It's to my taste, just not as a default
> that gives me warm feelings of belonging. Which is what we were discussing
> the thread.
For clarification: You did make it clear that you were ok with the most
recent wallpaper artwork but felt it was inappropriate, which is why I
referred to "art direction," not art.
"Warm feelings" and "belonging" isn't a goal that has been shared
the Fedora design team or mentioned previous to this thread TMK, so it
doesn't make sense to expect those to be reflected in the current art
direction. We traditionally have taken a 'sci-fi' approach, thinking
about the boundary between machines and nature and have played with that
in the designs as of late.
I totally understand. You can't have known about those goals before they
were even set. I'm glad that you're going to be the first ones to be able
to take action on something mentioned in this thread, because the actionable
items are few and far between so far.
Perhaps, in terms of the four f's, that approach is too focused
'features' and 'first' and we should look at incorporating the
piece of the four f's too. I will take this back to the team and maybe
we can make some changes to the F28 work to reflect that.
In either case, again, doesn't solve the larger problem. :(
If we figure out _what_ we need to change to achieve our goals, then
we can have a conversation about whether changes need to happen upstream
or downstream. But we're still at the point when we set down goals. Hopefully
the Fedora design team can translate some of those discussions into
more concrete ideas which we can discuss upstream and downstream.