On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Sean McNamara <smc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Saleel Velankar <svela...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Omg!Ubuntu! is reporting that this is one of the new default wallpapers > > :http://i.imgur.com/8v7rv.jpg > > > > Is this a render flaw or is it actually supposed to look like that? Did > > someone get hit with temporary blindness or what? > > IANAA (I am not an artist) but I don't like that image either, for > reasons stated by others already. It is too "busy". > > That said, I spend about 10 seconds per year with my actual desktop > showing. I always have a maximized window on all my monitors, usually > a web browser or terminal. So I could have the worst image in the > world as my desktop wallpaper and I wouldn't know it until I reboot my > system, which is quite infrequently. And then I would just hastily > cover it up with some maximized windows rather than waste time > changing it. > > IMHO you might as well make the background as eye-catching as humanly > possible (no pun intended), because retail stores keep their computers > on display at the default desktop wallpaper 99% of the time, clearing > out windows that customers create to keep it clean (or preventing them > from creating windows at all). So if the wallpaper looks interesting > or catches the user's eye, they will look at the computer more and try > to evaluate it as a potential purchase. Just my 2 cents as to what > type of practical use this background could have, at least in > principle. > > I don't think actual users tend to just sit there and stare at their > desktop; they maximize windows to take advantage of screen real > estate. And with web browsers taking up the entire screen with Unity, > "maximize" takes on a whole new meaning -- literally nothing remains > of the trappings of the desktop except for the top panel while a > browser session or other window is active and maximized. So maybe the > choice of wallpaper is less significant these days for most users. > > One final comment: the wallpaper featured here < > > http://linuxblog.pansapiens.com/2008/04/24/ubuntu-hardy-heron-804-is-officially-out-a-pre-review/# > > has a striking resemblance to the image Saleel linked in the OP. I > really, really, dislike this image of the heron as well; the stylized > portrayal of a bird just doesn't resonate with me as something that > has any relation to Ubuntu or computing. So at least Canonical is > consistently bad with their choice of having strange animals in their > desktop theme, with abstract shapes and brush strokes (I don't know > what else to call them!) in the background. > > At some point, I'll probably get annoyed enough at the narwhal theme > that I'll find one of the generic brown wallpapers with the Ubuntu > logo and replace the default wallpaper with that, and my ability to > care about it will have been exhausted... > > > Sean > > > > > I dont even know. > > > > -- > > Saleel > > > > > > -- > > ubuntu-art mailing list > > ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art > > > > > > -- > ubuntu-art mailing list > ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art > hey Sean, Its an interesting thought,, about computers in the store and wallpaper,, unfortunately,, although I partially agree with that,, I have yet to see any Ubuntu machine at Best Buy here in the US . Wallpaper must be well composed ..aka designed extremely well,, to be not only very attractive to the eye,, but non-intrusive,, and hopefully relaxing. Apple has, for the most part, used wallpapers very effectively., both attractive and non intrusive,, and "pretty" to the eye. Windows', on the other hand, were always harsh, and irritating in general. The link you pointed to.. and I agree with the hardy heron default image,, the banner on that page was also a default wallpaper,, I cant remember which one,, but it was very well done,, attractive,,non intrusive, but hardy heron could have been done with an animal wallpaper,, just not that one :) I have personally never liked an Ubuntu logo on my desktop.. I have yet to see any wallpaper done well enough that the logo isn't irritating. I am an artist.. and have been consistently disappointed,, but for a few versions,, by the ubuntu default images. I always enjoyed the play of browns for Ubuntu ,, and recently the "eggplant" purple... I guess purple is in this year:) I thought of the "browns" as a unique color scheme specific to Ubuntu, very attractive,, if not just unusual, particularly for an OS. I have been using ubuntu from day one ,, what was that 4.05 ..?...and been a member of the community art team for just about as long. I am not sure exactly what the official design team does,, other than the two new light themes,, ambiance and radiance...but what puzzles me, is that the design team has not, at least from the outside, sat down,, come up with a plan to concentrate on one of the main things, " the default look".. as you said ,, when someone sees it in the store. I believe what needs to be done by the visually oriented people on the design team,, is to sit in front of an Ubuntu machine,, turn it on and ask " what , along with the new themes, would grab a new users attention... pull them into and want to seriously use this cool looking system.. and can we hold that interest throughout their use of Ubuntu ? No one ,, as of yet,, on the design team or community team, has been able to match those 2 new themes with several images that compliment them ,, as if they were designed as a single unit,, a overall look and feel. A new gtk2 theme,, as attractive as that can be,, is only part of the process. If no images have been designed around them , then the themes themselves are like a disjointed element of the system.. true they are going to be used and seen , at least the panels..but they are detached in terms of the systems over all appearance. Personally only Firefox and movies are full screen on one of my monitors,, and only for short periods of time,,,Most of my time is spend with xchat doing support. So in my case,, the look and feel of the desktop is extremely important,, i dont want to see bubbles/circles on my default images ,, reference Kde's tendencies lately, I don't want to see a giant Ubuntu logo,, and I don't want to see a vibrant color that is going to force my eye away from the application window I may be working with. I don't think hiring a group of people,, labeling the group as the "official design team" and expect something unique to Ubuntu is going to work! It would take a small group of talented artists,, who are capable and willing , to step out of their own shoes and step into the first time Ubuntu user's shoes and eyes.. turn on a machine and wonder.. How can I wow this person...and as I said, maintain that interest throughout their Ubuntu experience. As usual. we now have a bunch of random wallpapers that have absolutely no relevance to Ubuntu whatsoever! so what is the point? Well, if in fact canonical wants to fix bug number one, then this aspect of Ubuntu has to have much much greater time, talent, and effort put into it,, equal to or greater than the developers code. Sorry if any of you developers are at first offended by that statement,, but think clearly,, creating one image ,, if done by a talented artist,, takes the same ability,, same concentration,, same skills, as does the coding of an application, and when creating a GUI application,, the artists is an invaluable partner in the process. I guess in short , Nothing will change, at least until an understanding that the process of creating code and the process of creating a viable image is identical, and in an operating system, absolutely an equal collaboration, the tools are different. Canonical will continually fail at this until they hire, either permanently or freelance, capable artists, willing to put in the time and effort to create a look and feel for this particular OS that will intrigue , and capture the attention of both the new and long time users, which will also create a viable marketing tool. To make us "all" proud of our use of, and participation in, this operating system. Let me remind some that ,, although you may have created images for Ubuntu in hopes that it may be chosen as an on board wallpaper,,, Linux as a whole is a meritocracy..and with Ubuntu, under the umbrella of a corporation. Although the image may, in fact, be beautifully done, it may have no relevance to the system itself or the long term vision of Ubuntu's leader. The really down side about that is,, Canonical has absolutely no idea about the long term visuals of ubuntu, and secondly, even some of the world's greatest artists would have no chance of influencing this part of Ubuntu because of the lack of understanding and respect for artists as equal to developers.. If you fall into that category, ^^^, then you are a part of the problem.
-- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
