Subject:
|
Re: Color Change background
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.color
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 2004 06:01:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1157 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.color, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> Jake,
>
> Thanks for working on getting this info, but...
>
> Jake McKee wrote:
>
>
> > Around the beginning of 2000, we found ourselves with a color palette that was
> > growing far too quickly, and far too organically.
>
> Detail, please - exactly which way do you mean "organically" here? It can have more
> than one meaning, one which is {very good} for anyone building realistic displays.
>
>
Typically, when said like this, "organically" means that it grew without a plan,
according to the needs of the time. Its sort of was a fashionable term in the
computer/tech world in the last 5 years. And as Jake has been a web producer
for awhile before being the community whipping boy, I am guessing this is what
he means. I would caution against confusing it with earth tone colors. I doubt
he meant that at all.
> > This initiative led to a revised color palette. This new color palette included
> > some deletions of low-use colors, additions of new colors, and some tweaks to
> > the existing colors. The goal in all these changes was completely and totally
> > focused on creating the absolute best set of LEGO colors possible.
>
> There is a TON of detail missing here - why did they think bleys were the answer? I
> think I know the answer, but there are severe problems with it...
>
>
How much do you expect Jake can say about their internal design decisions? I
mean, they are a for profit company. Why don't we demand that Intel release all
thier production notes for how they manufacture microprocessors? Because the
competition will take it, and use it against them.
> > There has been a great deal of assumptions posted about the reasons we made the
> > changes. Everything from trying to copy MEGABloks, to trying to save money on
> > recycling parts. I know it seems hard to believe (unless you really think about
> > the long-term history and attitude of this company), but it really is as simple
> > as trying to create a sustainable and consistent color palette for the future.
>
> To bring up other people's questions in a way - so this basically means, until we
> AFOLs screamed bloody murder, that white WAS scheduled for a change, right?
I think it is unfair to characterize it this way. Jake had said they felt it
would be better to do it all at once. They honestly didn't think anyone would
notice, and really, we might not have. If there wasn't an internet, I seriously
doubt we would. So, I think its safe to assume that if white was going to be
changed, they would have already done it, or they would at least have told us
that it was not "universal." They really aren't going back on this decision
because of us, they are just agreeing to listen more, and try and help ease our
pain as much as they can--but they are standing firm, so why would they back
down on a "white" change?
> Otherwise, bleys and the current white are NOT a "consistent color palette". The
> only way bleys could be in a consistent palette was if white was shifted (along with
> other colors).
>
> Locking in "universal" bleys and white insures that you will NEVER, EVER have a
> "consistent color palette".
>
> If the Design Lab truly wants a "consistent color palette", they need to go back on
> their word in one way or another - either shift white (try it, and you'll REALLY see
> some screaming, I'm sure), or shift bleys back. They have to do one or the other at
> this point, or they've failed at the very start of the palette change.
>
>
I don't know if I agree or disagree here. I am not an expert on color. I have
heard a lot of people argueing over which colors match what, and now I am quite
frankly confused. It would be nice if someone qualified (like an expert graphic
artist) and unemotional about this could explain it. (You may be qualified,
Tom, I don't know.)
> On a side note, I get it that noone in the Design Lab ever BUILDS with Lego? If
> they did, I can't imagine that they'd think removing an "organic" dark grey would be
> a good thing for anyone that likes to add vegetation and rocks to their layouts.
>
> Perhaps the DL needs an infusion of Trainheads?
>
>
Again, I think you are misinterpreting organic. I really like organic colors,
but to tell you the truth, I didn't as a kid. I was really into classic space,
and brown and muted green didn't do it for me. Your right about the trainheads,
but now Jake is one of the biggest trainheads around (at least in the company)
so that should help, shouldn't it?
> --
> Tom Stangl
> *http://www.vfaq.com/
> *DSM Visual FAQ home
> *http://www.vfaq.net/
> *Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Color Change background
|
| (...) Then I submit that the people making this decision are colorblind. Noone in their right mind would change dark grey to dark bley, and say they were DONE with the color palette changes, that they had brought the colors more inline. As others (...) (20 years ago, 14-May-04, to lugnet.color)
| | | Re: Color Change background
|
| (...) It is quite easy to make up your mind. Just build something in bley and white, and see for yourself how it looks like. Several others have already commented on this, but the best is to see this for yourself. Yours, Christian (20 years ago, 14-May-04, to lugnet.color)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Color Change background
|
| Jake, Thanks for working on getting this info, but... (...) Detail, please - exactly which way do you mean "organically" here? It can have more than one meaning, one which is {very good} for anyone building realistic displays. (...) There is a TON (...) (20 years ago, 13-May-04, to lugnet.color)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
