Issue 89563 - New default Application Background colour
Summary: New default Application Background colour
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: OOo 3.0 Beta
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
Depends on:
Reported: 2008-05-16 18:06 UTC by msandersen
Modified: 2013-01-29 21:46 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description msandersen 2008-05-16 18:06:10 UTC
This applies to all the other components as well.
For OOo3, we need to get rid of some of the grey. It's so Windows 95-ish.
It may be a bit of Office Envy, but especially now I'm on Vista and moved to
Office 2007, I'm sick of grey everywhere. I propose a default Application
Background called Steel Blue: Something like 
Saturation: 40
Brightness: 85
(RGB 128 171 214)
Comment 1 michael.ruess 2008-05-17 09:33:49 UTC
Reassigned to FL. I do not which person of the UX is the contact for such
things... please reassign, thanks ;-)
Comment 2 ace_dent 2008-05-17 19:25:44 UTC
I believe the Mac Aqua port went to some effort to set a custom blue for the App
colors. See: Issue 61174 (may not be relevant).
Comment 3 msandersen 2008-05-19 15:23:30 UTC
Hopefully it won't be as drastic as that issue, as they wanted to changed the
whole User Interface colourscheme.
Currently in Writer users can set a different Application Background colour in
Options->Appearance, so presumably it should be as simple as changing the
default colour. 
As the developers are well aware, they have to update the look of OOo to remain
competitive with MS Office on modern hardware with big(ger) screens, even if
they don't implement an interface change as drastic as that. This is just a very
minor thing they can do, not even touching on a UI revamp. I use Large Icons as
a small measure to make it look nicer and less dated.
Comment 4 johanneseva 2009-07-30 22:48:20 UTC
Isn't this a duplicate of Issue 75049 ?