Hi, On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Nicu Buculei<nicu_fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/08/2009 05:13 PM, William Jon McCann wrote: >> 2009/8/7 Máirín Duffy: >>> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:41 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote: >>>> All submissions or contributions: >>>> >>> [ snip ] >>> This section is great, no comments - well one suggestion, we could call >>> out good sources of appropriately-licensed image sources. >>> >>>> Subject matter: >>>> >>>> * Must not contain brand names or trademarks of any kind >>>> >>>> * Must not contain material that is inappropriate, offensive, >>>> indecent, obscene, hateful, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous or >>>> libelous >>>> - No sexually explicit or provocative subject matter >>>> - No images of weapons or violent imagery >>>> - No alcohol, smoking, or drug use imagery > > > No weapons would have ruled out Samuele's Invinxible from F10 (which was > very popular until we learned about its licensing problems) and would > probably rule out Jayme's Constantine. > However, I don't see the sword in Constantine's hand (in Jayme's > wallpaper proposal) as a weapon, but as a leadership symbol. Yes it would rule them out. As it should. A leadership symbol to the victorious is a symbol of oppression, conquest, or death to the rest. Again, simply not something we should be associating ourselves with. >>>> * Should not contain images of people (contemporary, historical, or >>>> fictional) > > I thought the "no images of people" is due to extra legal troubles (need > for signed model release forms and such). I think if the legal steps are > followed, then people should be fine. > > For example I think Ubuntu's "circle of friends" was brillinat for its > time: > http://media.photobucket.com/image/ubuntu%20%252522circle%20of%20friends%252522/chrispollard/background.jpg > > Highly controversial, yes, but this was part of what made it brilliant. That was never used as a default background. I don't think we should be in the Politically Correct people of the world business. We are not Benetton. There is a good rationale for why body parts and people are not a great idea here: http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/icons-design.html.en >>> Why is this? What about characters? The human figure? The human figure >>> abstracted? >> >> That would be fine as long as the character doesn't convey a message >> or ideology, give the appearance of preferring a specific region, >> culture, race, politics, religion, etc. We should make this more >> clear I suppose. An invented character without any of those >> attributes should be fine. > > Characters are good: Tatica's "kids" concept is awesome > (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tatadbb/3723154997/). Myself, I had really > fun time creating characters for my comic. If Zod was not FC6 but now, I > can think of the characters we would play with... > >>>> * Should not contain images of pets, or captive or mistreated animals >>> >>> The latter part I understand, but I'm unsure of the concern with images >>> of pets. E.g., a horse could be considered a pet and Samuele submitted >>> some very nice imagery with horses... e.g. if we're just trying to avoid >>> the flickr-zomg-look-at-my-cat syndrome we should just call it out... >>> but we've never had a problem with people submitting pictures of their >>> cat. >> >> If the animal is in a domestic or beast of burden setting I think we >> are best to avoid it. If the horse does not appear with a saddle, >> reins, in a corral, etc it can be assumed to be a wild horse - and >> that would be fine. This is a very subtle issue. This goes to one of >> the "experience tones" (adjective list) I mention below. "unfettered" > > Here I was expecting again a legal background: to use photos of > someone's pet, you may need signed property release forms. > >>>> Specific guidelines. >>>> >>> >>> I wouldn't consider these guidelines so much as suggestions or ideas... >> >> Actually, I do consider them guidelines. I think these should be the >> way we focus what is produced and submitted, and also the criteria for >> how we judge them. >> >>>> * Default background: >>>> * The following adjectives should be used to select an appropriate >>>> design: >>>> - Fresh >>>> - Light >>>> - Calm >>>> - Clean >>>> - Modern >>>> - Harmonious >>>> - Unfettered >>>> - Elegant >>>> - Graceful >>>> - Hopeful >>>> - Delightful >>>> >>> >>> These seem like great suggestions to get artists into the right mindset >>> but I wouldn't consider them exclusive nor all absolutely required. >> >> This is one of the most important parts of designing an experience >> that is consistent and harmonious - and in the right key. >> I think we should come up with a relatively short list of experience >> "tones" like the above (should have been 12 not 11). Each artwork >> submission should strive to exhibit some of these - and we should >> judge them based on whether they do and by how the result feels. >> >> So let's try to come up with how we want Fedora to feel. The above >> list is a starting point. The 12 tones of Fedora. > > I agree about those being suggestions, not a check list. We may want to > break the rules from time to time and go with something like > "steampunk", which is somewhat the opposite of "modern". Or "fresh" > would mean we won't ever use again a moon or an underwater view? I really think we should describe the experience we want for Fedora and use that to select the wallpaper - not the other way around. I don't think steampunk would pass this test since it doesn't really express any of the tones in this list. > Also, some items like "harmonious", "elegant" or "delightful" are so > vague and subjective that one can't quantify them. Those are perhaps the three most important ones actually. They are subjective - that is true - everything descriptive can be subjective. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to make something that is elegant, harmonious, and delightful. Thanks, Jon _______________________________________________ design-team mailing list design-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/design-team
