[Design-team] Wallpapers guidelines draft

William Jon McCann william.jon.mccann at gmail.com
Mon Aug 10 16:08:34 UTC 2009


On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Nicu Buculei<nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro> 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:

>>> 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.


More information about the design-team mailing list