On 8 November 2016 at 20:43, Christian Schaller <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
