This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Michiel Sikma wrote:
They don't necessarily have to be distinctly Ubuntu, I
believe. That's up for debate. I think that nice photos that are
included by default can be abstract enough as well simply to be good
filler material. Besides, how would you make them classify as
Ubuntu-ish, anyway? Do they all need to be brown, too? They'll do just
fine being diverse.
They do need to be "distinctive" and in keeping with the rest of the
default theme.
By distinctive, I mean that you should know when looking at a low-res
screenshot that it is an Ubuntu machine. We have achieved this
extremely well with Hoary -> Dapper. Kubuntu is less distinctive,
but I'm sure Ken will come up with something that can be as well-known
yet still true to the KDE spirit.
A good default wallpaper is an art. Truly.
- distinctive (passes the "low-res screenshot" test)
- not distracting (hence the preference for abstract art with low
contrast)
- not too bright (it becomes tiring on the eyes)
- respects typical placement (people tend to want to put icons in the
corners so don't put a lot of detail there)
- low memory (balance resolution with RAM)
- stretchable (4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10)
Yes, when people go get their OWN wallpaper they may well go outside of
these constraints. But the default wallpaper has to live within them.
It would be really, really nice if someone would write this up as a
wiki page as "guidelines for an Ubuntu wallpaper"!
Mark
|
|
