----- Original Message ----- > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Making Fedora recognisable doesn't (necessarily) mean having a distinct > > visual identity, a different one from GNOME. > > I'm having trouble understanding what this means. Can you give an > example? That, depending on usage, showing a different colour scheme in the default bash prompt, for example, might make Fedora recognisable, without the need to add logos where there weren't any. > > 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). > > "Throwing away" seems a little dramatic. I get the importance of > design. Building and reinforcing the Fedora brand is a marketing > requirement — one of the things the design needs to accomplish. If it > does not do that, it isn't succeeding. It is "throwing away". Because you literally have to re-do the user testing. Given that very little of it happens in Fedora (or RHEL), that I know of, and most of it upstream, then it means that we invalidate any upstream changes that might have been made, and can't incorporate upstream feedback in the same way either. > I agree that user testing is an important part, in any case. I'd like > to see a lot more of it. > > > -- > Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
